LECTURE ON “OLD CAVERSHAM”

BY MR. W. WING

View of Caversham from

Reprinted from the Reading Mercury and Berks County Paper. The following Lecture on the History of Caversham from very early times was delivered by Mr. W. Wing in the National School-room, Caversham, on Monday evening, November 12th, 1894. The Rev. C. W. H. Kenrick, the Vicar, was in the chair. The Lecture was illustrated by a number of interesting relics, pictures, parochial documents, &c., and at the close General Radcliffe proposed, and Mr. D. Haslam seconded, a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Wing for his very interesting and com- prehensive lecture. This version of Mr Wing’s work was transcribed from a printed copy of the lecture held by the Caversham branch of Reading Public Library (L 942.293). All of the text from the original work has been preserved but changes have been made in the formatting; short quotes have been italicised and street names have been put in the modern form. The spelling in the original document has been kept and so have the original para- graphs. Any illustrations were added by the modern-day editor, the original booklet contains none. The print in the original booklet is very small. It is hoped that as well as making the document more widely available this version will also be easier to read.

1 OLD CAVERSHAM

HEPRESENTTIME seems particularly opportune for calling attention to the history of this parish, because with the end of the year a new depar- T ture takes place. The old civil parish of Caversham extending from the to the borders of Checkendon, some six miles, will be divided, the northern portion becoming a separate parish under the designation of Kid- more. This change from a state of things which has existed for a longer period than can be accurately ascertained is likely to prove beneficial to the inhabi- tants of the newly created parish, but it is a decided parting of the ways, and in speaking of Caversham I propose to treat of the whole parish, as it has hitherto existed instead of limiting myself to the smaller district which will hereafter be known us the parish of Caversham. It is generally understood that ours is a place without a history, and truly the iconoclast has so thoroughly done his work that there are very few outward signs of antiquity or interest; but a very little research amongst the archives will reveal the fact that there is ample material for an unusually interesting local history.

The old parish of Caversham and neighbouring parishes

I will first allude to three points which are often mentioned with respect to the parish. First, that there is preserved in the church a proclamation of King James I. appointing certain days for persons diseased with the evil to receive the royal touch. As to this I can only say that neither the late Mr. Bennett, Mr. Molineux, nor our present Vicar, Mr. Kenrick, ever heard of any such document, and how the statement originated it is impossible to discover. In looking up matters for this lecture I have learned for the first time that the prayer books of as late a date as the reign of Queen Anne, contained a form of prayer for the ceremony of touching for the evil. Secondly, all the guide books (and you know how accurate such books always are) say that the old mansion in Caversham Park where Charles I. was in turn a visitor, and a prisoner, stood

2 nearer to the river than the present mansion, and the statement is repeated in Mrs. Climenson’s recently published History of Shiplake. I have traced its origin in the description of a visit paid by Queen Anne, wife of James I., to Caversham Park, but the context makes it fairly clear that the expression nearer to the Thames merely meant a few feet to the south of the present site i.e., slightly lower on the hill and not anywhere near the river, which is a mile and a quarter away. A third statement often gravely propounded to the effect that there was formerly an underground passage from Reading Abbey to Caversham Park scarcely needs comment; the engineers of the middle ages, skillful as they were, did not venture on the construction of Thames tunnels. Caversham today is a very different place to the Caversham of 50 years ago, as although in a different county the village is practically a suburb of the Borough of Reading, to which it yearly becomes more united by the rapidity of building operations. Before the construction of the Great Western Railway there were no houses or buildings between Greyfriars Church and ; the road across the valley running between open ditches and having no lamps at night to guide the traveller on his way. As to the village itself, the old build- ings now remaining give indication of the former rural character of the place. Bridge Street was a narrow inconvenient thoroughfare with a few houses on ei- ther side; Church Road and Church Street were very much as they are now, but Prospect Street was an entirely open road until reaching Little End, at which point one of the old thatched cottages still standing was the village school. In the direction of Lower Caversham there were practically no houses if we except the Fox and Hounds public house, between where Mr. Holt’s shop now stands and the corner of Mill Road, beyond which the extent of the little hamlet can be easily conjectured by noting the old cottages still existing. Previous to the year 1834 the road above the Prince of Wales leading to was little better than a track across the open unenclosed arable land which went by the name of Balmers Fields. The parish pound, village stocks and pillory stood at the cor- ner now occupied by Caversham Free Church, and were afterwards removed to what is now the junction of Short Street with Prospect Street. The transfor- mation which has come over the old village is being intensified every day, and soon it will only he possible to trace the old condition with the aid of the parish maps. I cannot help regretting the disappearance of many old land-marks and the total absence of any sense of admiration for the picturesque evinced in the majority of our new developments. Where to begin a local history is rather a difficult question, but I cannot do better than follow the example of Colonel Cooper Kim, who, in his History of Berks, devotes the first chapter to the geological condition and Archaic history of the country, and as many of his remarks apply exactly to the conditions existing at Caversham I cannot do better than quote the following: “Man naturally followed the lines marked out by the river, both to avoid the dangers and difficulties of the dense forests and to procure water. Of food vessels there are no traces or remains anywhere. So few and scattered are his relics, so far apart, are found the groups of his rude implements that it seems to point to the conclusion that he was weak in numbers, both in family and in population In so hard a life only the fittest survived, and possibly his mistrust of living things extended to his brother men, as well as to the fierce beasts of the chase. His habits may well have been those of a family gathering rather

3 than those of a community. The commune is only possible with mutual trust that implies a higher form of life. But little removed from the beast he slew for food, he was savage, though a man. One can expect little art from him. At Reading, in the gravel pit at Grovelands, in those at Pangbourne, and in those behind Wasing Place, near Midgham, are rude flakes, scrapers, and ovate or pointed axes, roughly chipped, associated with teeth and bones of mammoth, rhinoceros and bos*. They vary in length from four to eight inches, and may have been held in the bare hand or fixed in a cleft stick as a weapon little bet- ter than a stone club. They are found in local groups, not scattered broadcast throughout long ranges of these river gravel beaches, but just now and then where there may have been a sheltered hollow or backwater, by the side of which the man could live.”

Flint implements from Toot’s Farm

Flint implements, such as there described, have been found in the gravel pit near the entrance to Toot’s Farm, and teeth, or more correctly speaking molars, with bones of the Mammoth discovered in the pit near the Henley Road. These specimens are carefully preserved in the Reading Museum. I cannot pass away from this part of the subject without alluding to the remarkable geological fea- tures of the parish where the student can find the gravel drifts mentioned in the quotation just read; the bed of Reading clay with its overlying springs of pure water and wonderful fossil deposits at Emmer Green and the huge section of chalk shown in Mr. Simonds’s pit near the church. These would in themselves form material for an extended paper. The derivation of the word Caversham is a puzzling matter, especially as in old documents the word is very variously spelt. For instance, in the will of Lady Kildare dated 1707, there is a bequest to the parish or town of Cawsham alias Caversham, and another deed preserved in the parish chest speaks of the place in the same way, as Cawsham, as do many old maps. I have also met

4 with an allusion to the place as Causeiam, and in the time of the Civil War one writer speaks of Casum Church. I also found in the Bodleian Library an entry of Cawsome. On the other hand, documents dated in the first half of the sixteenth century have Caversham spelt exactly as it is at the present time. Returning to the derivation of the word, the opinion of Dr. Stevens, the Hon. Curator to the Reading Museum, is of great value. He writes: “I cannot make out the definition of Caversham (CAVERSHA). Sha or Shaw is a woody or shady place, which Caversham under the hill must at all times have been. Cave expresses a hole or hollow; it might therefore mean a wooded hollow, which would be quite appropriate. Taking the name as Cavers-ham; ham being the Saxon for home, the name would mean the home of the Cavers. I prefer the former, and the latter name, Caversham, appears to be later than Caversha (of Domesday, 1086).” I must confess that the home of the Cavers is more satisfactory than a shady place, which may be taken in a double sense, and the letter was possibly left out of the Domesday Survey inadvertently; at any rate the Saxon affix ham is almost universally allowed to mean home, as Buckingham, the home of the Bocking family, Nottingham, the home of the Nottings, with many other examples; but I do not presume to set up my opinion against that of so sound an authority as Dr. Stevens. If there are any traces in the parish of the period when Britain was to a great ex- tent a Roman province they have escaped my notice. It may be observed that the history of the Roman occupation is one of contest with the hostile native tribes, and of these Dobuni, as the inhabitants of were called, prob- ably made themselves as troublesome as others. A neighbour of mine, two or three years ago, dug up a bronze coin of the Emperor Constantine, but I am afraid that is not sufficient evidence to prove that Bridge Street was ever a Ro- man settlement. Passing on to Saxon times, we read in J. R. Green’s Conquest of England that the Danes sailed up the Thames in 871 and occupied the tongue of land at the junction of the Kennet with the Thames, throwing an entrenchment across the valley from stream to stream, and so forming a fortified encamp- ment as a base for the warlike operations which subsequently took place on the chalk downs of . Whether they visited this side of the Thames in only a matter of conjecture. That the parish had a separate existence before the Norman Conquest is proved by the following translation from the Domesday Survey:

Caversha.

“Walter Gifard holds of the King 20 hides of the Manor of Caversha. There are 21 ploughs, in demesne 4 ploughs. There are 2 serfs, 28 Villans, with 13 border- ers with 13 ploughs. There in a mill with 20 shillings with l3 acres of meadow wood for one hog (this is mysterious, for the parish must have contained more than one pig). In the time of King Edward afterwards and now it was worth £20 Suain held it free in the time of King Edward.” A hide of land was 120 acres, so that Gifard’s holding was 2,400 acres. The present area of the parish is 5,100 acres. A plough was a team of oxen, some- times as many as eight. So we find that at the end of the eleventh century there

5 must have been a considerable amount of land in the parish of Caversham un- der cultivation, and that there was a mill in existence, probably very near the site of the present structure. This Walter Giffard, afterwards Earl of Bucking- ham, fought with at Hastings, and was rewarded with the Manor of Caversham, which included Lashbrook, that part of Shiplake parish where the station now stands. Having briefly sketched the condition of the parish previous to the Conquest, I propose now to depart from the exact chronological sequence, and to deal indi- vidually with some of the most interesting features of the place. Commencing with the bridge, who that for the first time walks over the present unsightly, broken-backed, badly constructed, and hideous structure, would conjecture that Caversham bridge ever had a history at all? Let me get rid of this viaduct at once, by saying that it was built in 1868, under an Act of Parliament, which rests the maintenance in the Reading Corporation, Oxfordshire having to re- fund half the annual cost. Who was responsible for the design I have not cared to inquire: the thing is there, and we have the satisfaction of knowing that no structure crossing the Thames from its source to the sea can equal our bridge in its downright and almost studied ugliness. When Mr. Bona’s large boathouse was built a few years back, in digging for foundations, the workman came upon an old road leading to the river, and it is probable that before any bridge was built, there was a ford running from where the boathouse now stands to the bottom of the lane leading from Church-road to the watering place. Subse- quently, that is in the fourteenth century, there was a bridge of timber, which was from time to time improved and added to, until the old bridge, which lives in the recollection of many inhabitants, but which I never saw, remained. It was a varied, but not unpicturesque combination of brick arches on the Oxfordshire side, with a wooden and afterwards wood and iron, species of girders, for the Berkshire portion. I am enabled to show you various illustrations of this bridge from 1799 to the date of its demolition. The chief defect in the structure, in ad- dition to the state of decay into which it had fallen, was the extremely narrow roadway on the northern portion, where only one vehicle could pass at a time; one of the arches still remains, and can be seen by going along the access to the river near Mr. Moss’s boat-yard. On the Island in the middle of the bridge there existed, previous to the dis- solution of the monasteries, a cell to the Abbey of Notley, Bucks, which must have been the resort of many credulous people, as the following letter, written by Dr. London, one of the visitors appointed by King Henry VIII., to Thomas Cromwell, will show. I may say that this letter is undoubtedly authentic, and has been published by the Camden Society. The spelling is, of course, very quaint, and some of the words are difficult to modernize: “In my most humble manner I have me commendyd unto yower gude Lorde- schippe, a certenyng the same that I have pullyd down the image of our ladye at Caversham whereunto wasse great pilgrimage. The image ys platyd over with silver and I have putt yt in a cheste fast lockyd and nayld uppe, and by the next bardge that comythe from Reding to London yt shall be brought to your lordeschippe. I have also pullyd down the place sche stode in with all other ceremonyes as lightes, schrowdes, crowchys, and imagies of wex, hang- yng about the chapell, and have defacyd the same thorowly in exchuyng of any farther resortt thedyr. Thys chappell dydde belong to Notley Abbey, and ther

6 always wasse a chanon of that monastery whiche was callyd the Warden of Caversham, and he songe in thys chapell, and hadde the offerings for his livy- ing. He was astonyd to show many pretty relykes among the which wer (as he made report) the holy dager which kylled King Henry, and the holy knyfe that kylled Seynt Edwarde. All these with many other with the cotes of thys image her cappe and here my servant shall bring unto your Lordeschippe thys wek with the surrender of the Freers under the covent seale and their seale also. I have sent the Chanon home agen to Notleye, and have made fast the doors of the chapell; whiche is thoroughly well covered with ledde; and if yt be your lordeschips pleasure I shall se yt made suer to the Kinges graces use. And if it be nott so orderyd the chapell standith so wildely that the ledde will be stolen by nyzt, as I wasse served at the Fryers; for as soon as I hadde taken the Fryers surrendre, the multytude of the poverty of the Town resortyd the dye, and all thinge that myst be hadde they stole away, insomyche that they had convey’d the very clapers of the bells. And saving that Mr. Fachell, wiche made me great chere at hys howse, and the Mayer dydde assist me, they wolde have made no litill spoyle. In thys I have don as moche as I cowde do to save every thing to the Kinges graces use; as shall apper to your lordeschippe at the begynnyng of the terme, Godde willing, who with increase of moche honour long preserve your gudde lordeschippe.” At Redinge xxij. Septembris. Presumably 1536. “At Caversham ys a proper lodginge, wher the chanon lay, with a fayer garden and an orchard mete to be bestowd upon some frynde of your lordeschips in these parties, for the chanon hadde nothing to do ther butt to kepe the chapel and receyve the offringes. Your most bounden Oratour and Servant, JOHN LONDON.” The allusion to the Friers is probably to Grey Friars in Reading. The proper lodging where the Canon lay, I take to have been on the site of Dr. Cockran’s present residence still called the Priory, and the remarkable old brick and fint wall is a survival of the old monastic days. This you may consider rather a confident opinion, but it was supported by that distinguished antiquarian au- thority Sir Henry Lee Dryden, who inspected it in 1888. Moreover, there is precisely similar work existing in the foundations of Cane End House, which will be described later. Returning to Dr. London’s letter, his proceedings were somewhat summary. Doubtless the poor Canon, even if he had to tramp his weary way across the Chilterns, a distance of 24 miles, was glad enough to get back to Nottley, where, however, he was not destined to stay long, for the Abbey was dissolved, and its property confiscated and sold by the King’s grace before another year had elapsed. In a letter dated April 15th 1727 and signed J. Loveday addressed to “T. Hearne,” the celebrated antiquary, occurs the following respecting the chapel on the bridge: “It was dedicated to St. Ann, and from thence the religious went at certain times to a well, now in the hedge between the field called the Mount and the lane called Priest Lane, which is supposed to have its name from their going through it to thc wall, which was called formerly St. Ann’s Well. There was in

7 the memory of man a large ancient oak just by the well, which was also had in great veneration.” I approach the subject of St. Peter’s Church with some diffidence, because it is almost impossible to avoid expressions which may be taken as matter of opinion. I can only say that there is no intention on my part to make imputa- tions against any individual; but I must frankly say that from the antiquarian or historical point of view the church has been over-restored. The anxiety to provide additional accommodation was perhaps a sufficient motive, but that might have been secured without the sacrifice of many interesting features. The old church is described in The Ecclesiastical and Architectural Topography of England, dated 1850, thus: “The plan of this church is a nave and chancel, with a north aisle to each. The east window of chancel is good Decorated; that of the aisle plain Perpendicu- lar. On the north side of.the chancel are two perpendicular arches with pan- elled soffits and the caps formed of carved angels. The arches of the nave are Norman, circular or plain round pillars. The south doorway is Norman, with the zigzag moulding very bold. The tower is of wood.” The following brief description of the church as it is now was written by me some three or four years since and published in the Caversham Parish Mag- azine. On reference to the wood cut on the cover four distinct features of the church will be seen: (l) the chancel; (2) the chantry or lady-chapel, terminat- ing the north aisle; (3) the south aisle; (4) the tower; the two latter being new features added at the restoration of 1878, and therefore outside the purpose of these lines. When was St. Peter’s built? Is the first question to be consid- ered. Dr. Ducarel, the celebrated antiquary of the last century, gives the date as during the reign of Henry I. (1100-1135), basing his opinion on two lancet windows (destroyed in 1878) in the south aisle, but these might from their character have been inserted at a later date. Previous to the restoration the arches separating the nave from the north aisle were Norman, and taking them in conjunction with the beautiful restored Norman doorway, the conclusion is reached that the oldest portion of the building dated before 1154, usually con- sidered to be the end of the Norman period. On the other hand, the doorway is thought by some to have been brought from Reading Abbey. In the year 1162 there occurred an event of importance to Caversham, for Walter Giffard, second Earl of Buckingham, founded Notley Abbey in Buckinghamshire, and with other gifts endowed his new foundation with the church and tithes of Caversham. King Henry II. (1154-1189) confirmed these benefactions, and in the recital mentioned the chapel of St. Mary annexed to the church of Caversham, which probably occupied the site of the existing chantry north of the chancel. The church in possession of the Monks of Notley received care and frequent additions. The east window proves that the chancel was originally built about the middle of the fourteenth century, and the north aisle, according to Ducarel, followed in the reign of Richard II. (1377-1399). The feature of the church most worthy of notice, and most frequently commented upon is the treatment of the arches between the chancel and the chapel terminating the north aisle, and var- ious conjectures have been hazarded on this subject. It has been shown that a Lady Chapel, or Chapel of St. Mary, existed before 1189. This in course of time would become dilapidated, and therefore at some date when perpendicular architecture was the prevailing style (1399-1547) the Monks pulled down and

8 rebuilt the old structure, using the north wall of the chancel, and connecting the two by the arches, which they ornamented with the curious panelled sof- fits and joints, which are so unusual. The suggestion has been made that these were originally intended to form canopies to tombs, but there are no traces of mutilation which would have occurred had such tombs existed, especially when we remember that the church was visited by soldiers during the great Civil War. The window is strong evidence in favour of Ducarel’s conclusion, that the chapel was built in the reign of Henry IV. (1399-1413). After the disso- lution of the monasteries this chantry passed, by purchase, from the King with the estate of Cane End (or Canon End) into the hands of the Brigham family, with whose descendant, Mr. Vanderstegen, it still remains, having been used for several generations as a mortuary chapel. Some of the inscriptions on the tombs, particularly that dated 1652, are notable on account of the character of the letters and figures, and the quaintness of the phraseology and spelling. The roof is in reality of fine open timbered character but hidden by a perfectly use- less ceiling, and a peculiarity of the structure is that the east window is out of the centre of the gable. The lower portion of the old church tower was Nor- man, but the structure being used as an outpost at the siege of Reading, was so battered and mutilated that the wooden erection familiar to the recollection of many was substituted. In the modern tower is preserved a fine emblazonment of the Royal arms, dated 1662, showing that the Caversham people appreci- ated the restoration of King Charles the Second. Previous to 1878 there existed some Jacobean carving in the tower with the date 1605; a portion of this was actually sold by auction two or three years ago, but remains in the parish. The table now in the vestry which was probably used as the Communion Table in the seventeenth Century, is of about the same date (1605), and the two chairs preserved in the south aisle are good specimens of the same period. The up- per part of the font is very ancient, possibly contemporary with the original church. It was for many years in the Rectory garden before Mr. Bennett dis- covered it, and had it mounted on the present base. Before the first restoration in 1857, the pulpit and clerk’s desk below were in the centre of the nave, near which was a square pew occupied by the family from Caversham Park, and I am able, through the courtesy of Miss Lovegrove, to show the old state prayer book used in that pew, first by Lord Cadogan, and afterwards by Col. Marsack. In the Rawlinson MS., written during the first half of the last century and pre- served in the Bodleian library at , occurs the following entry relating to Caversham Church: “In Mr. Brigham’s Chancell on the north side on a rough free stone grave stone in capitals is the inscription following. Here lie the bones of Theodosia Craven, second daughter of Sir Anthony Craven, of Caversham, Kt. and Baronet. Shee was borne the 12th of Aprill, 1664, and buried March 4th, 1666. Theodosia fourth dughter of Sir Anthony Craven, above said, was borne Februari 6, 1667, and was buried July 20, 1668. Round the stone: All flesh is grass; time mowes down mortally all; These flow’ring Cravens scarce took time to fall; Here death and time in this do both agree, Death doth spare none; time digs their graves, I see.” One cannot say much for the poetry of this epitaph. The stone referred to is not visible now, but may be under the organ or the flooring of the seats.

9 Before leaving the Church it is desirable to briefly notice the Parish Registers, which date from 1597, and are fairly well kept, although many of the entries could only be deciphered by an expert, owing to the peculiarity of the writing. In 1620 there is an entry after a name I could not read, Ye daughter of a stranger a tinker was baptized ye 27 of December. In 1623, Robert ye footman was buryed the 7th of October. Under May, 1641, there is a record of the Declaration and Protestation made solemnly in the Church of Cawsham by the ministers and inhabitants of the parish to maintain the Protestant religion. This was in com- pliance with a request, also recorded, of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses of the Commons House of Parliament. There is no entry of any burial during the time of the Siege of Reading likely to have been that of a soldier. In 1666 and the few following years there are several entries respecting members of the Craven family, including the baptism of the two children whose memorials I have alluded to, but they are in a different and much superior handwriting to the bulk of the volume, and were probably made with the consent of the min- ister by the family lawyer. The most interesting feature in the oldest volume is entered as A duplicate of the money gathered in the Parish of Caversham for the Redemption of the English taken by the Turks November ye first 1670. There were 45 subscribers, of whom Sir Anthony Craven gave 10 shillings, Mr. Brigham 5 shillings, the Rev. W. Lake, curate, 2s. 6d., the total amount being £2 1s. 9d., equivalent to much more of our present money. What caused Englishmen to be imprisoned by Turks in 1670 I have been unable to discover. In 1660 and 12 following years there were collections made in the Church for objects which at this date seem rather remarkable. Thus, in 1660, 7s. 6d. was collected for Mil- ton Abbot, in the County of Dorset, and towards the—a word I could not make out, but apparently meaning losses of Farmer Molwell Olaigh in the County of Downe, Ireland, 5s. 6d. There are in all about 12 such entries, perhaps the most extraordinary one being 1672 May 25. Collected towards the losse by fire at the Theater Royall in London, six shillings. We should be rather surprised if col- lections in Church now were utilised for a similar purpose. There is a record of the gift by Mrs. Jane Alexander which amounted to £5, and was regularly paid by the Loveday estate from 1661 to 1678, when it disappeared into limbo with, it is to be feared, many similar parochial charities. The registers of the last cen- tury are of course less interesting, and I only extracted the following: “A silver Flaggon, two Silver Plates, and a Box to collect the Alms given to this Parish by the Right Honble. Elizabeth the Lady Cadogan, 1754.” This Communion plate is still in use. There is an entry in the Register July 9th, 1670, as follows: “Widdow Stevens, of Ember Green, was buried,” which may possibly throw some light on the origin of the present extraordinary name of the hamlet. From Caversham Church to Cane End House is a natural transition, seeing the close connection that has been so long maintained between them, and I think it best to describe that old family seat before mentioning Caversham Park. The hamlet or manor of Cane End or Canon End has hitherto been an inherent part of Caversham Parish, of which it is by no means the least inter- esting feature. After the dissolution of the Monasteries the estate, which had previously belonged to Nottley Abbey, was sold by King Henry the Eighth to Anthony Brigham Cofferer to the King, in the year 1537. The original grant is still preserved in the house and is a beautifully executed document in Latin, in which Caversham is spelt exactly according to modern usage, and Canon

10 End is one word, Canonende. There is no sign-manual appended to the docu- ment, which is under the great seal, a circular piece of wax about five inches in diameter with an effigy in relief, the King seated on his throne. At Cane End the Brigham family remained from generation to generation, i.e., from 1537 to 1742, when Thomas Brigham, the last male of his race, died leaving two daugh- ters co-heiresses of his estates at Crane End and Blount’s Court, one of them, Elizabeth, taking the first named as her portion. There had come over from Holland in the train of William of Orange, in 1688, a courtier by name William Vanderstegen, who remained in England and amassed as foreigners who were befriended by Kings usually did in those days considerable wealth, and he in due course marrying and having a family, sent his son, also named William, to Oxford University, from whence he (the son) paid a visit to the Powys family at Hardwick, where he met and fell in love with the heiress of Cane End, who became his wife in 1750. His portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds, fine example, and that of his father, the Dutch courtier, by an unknown artist, are still in the house, where there are also portraits of the Brigham family. As to the house, the cellars used by the monks of Nottley still remain, the present house having been built in 1706 exactly on the old foundations, and the medieval wood pan- elling was re-used in many of the rooms. The drawing-room and some of the front bed-rooms are perfect, and untouched specimens of the interior architec- ture of Queen Anne’s reign, and contrast favourably with the rather gimcrack modern work which is often spoken of as the Queen Anne style. As to furni- ture, it seldom so complete historical a series can be found for it runs with the house. There is a set of chairs old the high-backed, turned and carved style of the later Tudor period, picturesque but uncomfortable, not so much of the Stu- art days when perhaps times were too unsettled for people to think of buying furniture, but the Queen Anne rooms have veritable Queen Anne chairs, and there are many Georgian specimens. The Vanderstegen family still possess the estate, two of them having served the office of High Sherif—William the first one at Cane End, who served the office in 1762, and William Henry, who died three years ago, in 1843. I ought, perhaps, to explain that it was the custom for the monks of the middle ages to build small branch establishments, often called Granges, wherever they had large estates, as residences for those who superintended the cultivation of the land. It is, however, unusual to find any monastic building so far away from a stream as Cane End. One is tempted to think the resident canons must have had very hard times on Fridays. In the History of Shiplake is is stated that Cane End was the proper lodging of the Canon described in the letter about St. Anne’s Chapel. This appears to me highly improbable. The roads in the 15th an 16th century were not very passable, and it is unlikely that the ministering priest would walk or ride daily a distance of eight miles; moreover, the tradition I have mentioned as to the well in Priest Hill is in favour of my theory that the priest’s lodging was on the site now occupied by the Priory. Caversham Park Mansion, except for its magnificent situation, does not at the present day strike a stranger as having any architectural or antiquarian points of interest but as a matter of fact few places are so rich in historical association. Here Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, Lord of the Manor of Caversham, in August, 1435, made his last will and testament. This Earl was father-in- law to the last of the Barons, who was killed in the battle of Barnet, and con-

11 sequently grandfather to the Lady Anne Nevill, successively wife of Edward Prince of Wales and King Richard III., a familiar character to all students of Shakespeare. Here, in 1601, the great English Queen Elizabeth came in state to visit her Comptroller, Sir William Knollys, and in the next reign the same courtier gave right royal entertainment to Anne, wife of the pedantic King James. A few years later and Caversham Park saw perhaps the most interest- ing and romantic figure in English history, King Charles I., both a visitor and a prisoner within its walls, and early in the eighteenth century came Lord Cado- gan, the Adjutant-General of the Forces to John Duke of Marlborough, second only in military importance to that great Commander. The park was then, and up to a period well within living memory, stocked with deer. The following is an account of the Royal visit of 1601, taken from Queen Elizabeth’s Progress: “In the month of September, Queen Elizabeth, while she abode in Reading, went one day to dinner at Mr. Comptroller’s (Sir William Knollys) at Caver- sham. Mr. Greene, Sheriff of Oxfordshire, met her at the bridge very well ac- companied. Mr. Comptroller made great cheer and entertained her with many devices of singing, dancing. and playing wenches, and such like. At her going thence she made three Knights, Sir Francis Goodwin, Sir Edward Fettiplace, and Sir Richard Warder” Reading Abbey was turned into a Royal Palace after the Dissolution, and the Queen was probably residing there at the date of her visit to Caversham. A very detailed account of the next Royal visit was written by one Campian. It is entitled “A Relation of the late Royall Entertainment given by the Right Hon. the Lord Knowles, at Caw-some House, neare Redding, to our Most Gracious Queen Anne, in progresse toward the Bathe.” To summarize, the Queen started in April, 1613, in a long intended progress to Bath in great state, attended by many of the nobility. On the 27th her Majesty was received by Lord and Lady Knollys at Caversham House, where she was entertained with revells and a gallant masque. The house is thus described by Campian: “The house is fairely built of bricke mounted on the hill side of a parke within view of Redding, they being severed about the space of two miles.” A note by Nicholls, author of James I.’s Progresses, states that this house was pulled down by Lord Cadogan, who erected the present elegant structure somewhat further from the Thames, and built a cedar room for the reception of George I. This expression somewhat further from the Thames is all the evidence for the often-quoted statement mentioned at the beginning of my lecture, but taken in conjunction with the hillside of a parke and two miles from Redding, it is quite clear that the old house was at any rate well clear of the Thames Valley. Reverting to Queen Anne of Denmark’s visit, it appears that a new entrance through arable land was made for the occasion, and a sort of play was enacted in the open for the Queen’s diversion, the arrival being made through the gardens south of the house. The chronicle continues “So ended the entertainment without the house for that time, and the Queen’s pleasure being that night to suppe privately, the King’s violins attended her with the solemnest musick. Supper being ended, her Majesty, accompanied with many Lords and Ladies, came into the Hall and rested herself in her chair of state, the scaffoldes of the Hall being in all parts filled with beholders of worth.” A masquerade and dance afterwards took place, and the Queen was so pleased with her “entertainment that she vouchsafed to make herselfe the head of their revels and graciously to

12 adorn the place with her personall dancing.” When the Queen left Caversham “revells similar to those at her reception were performed” and, according to Campian, “graciously received by H.M. and celebrated with her most royall applause.” The old house was occasionally used as a prison. When the Earl and Countess of Somerset were released from the Tower, Jan. 18, 1621, they were ordered to repair either to “Greys or Caversham, the Lord Wallingford’s houses, in the County of Oxon, and remain confined to one or other of the said houses, and within 3 miles compass of the same.” The Lord Wallingford mentioned was the same Sir William Knollys who had entertained the two Queens. He was afterwards advanced to the Earldom of Banbury. The name of this Earl is as- sociated with one of those romances of the Peerage which are stranger than fiction. The limits as to time and other reasons prevent me from telling the tale fully; sufficient be it to say that 180 years after his death a claim to the Earldom was made by an alleged descendant, but the House of Lords decided against it, despite that Mr. W. Wallingford Knollys, elder brother, by the way, of the present Comptroller to the Prince of Wales, asserted in a letter to the Evening Standard, in 1891, that he was “By hereditary descent and the law of the land Viscount Wallingford and Earl of Banbury.” The Craven family owned the manor and park of Caversham after the death of the last named nobleman and in 1647, Charles I., who had then surrendered to the Parliament, was brought here from Windsor, where he was allowed to see some of his children. We are told a letter to the Speaker, signed by Secretary Williamson, “here was a gallant Court, and his Majesty very cheerful, being attended by many brave gallants.” As I have heard doubts expressed on the question of King Charles’s sojourn at Caversham, I will give two quotations. Mr. Gardner, in his History of the Great Civil War (Edition 1893), has, referring to the King, “being established at Lord Craven’s house at Caversham on the opposite bank of the Thames,” and Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion, says (July, 1647), “While there (i.e. at Caversham) he was allowed to see his children, who went to him there and stayed with him two days, which was the greatest satisfaction the King could receive.” The children referred to were James, afterwards King James II., Eliza- beth, who died in Carisbroke , and Henry, Duke of Gloucester. In an old memorandum book of the Lybbe Powys family at Hardwick is an entry, under date July 16, 1647, “King Charles was prisoner at Causham Lodge and bowled in Collins Green attended by a troop of horse under Col. Rossiter.” The King according to tradition so enjoyed the game that for the time being he forgot his troubles. A neighbouring public-house was afterwards christened the King Charles’s Head, and the following lines are supposed to have been written on the signboard: “Stop, traveller, stop!” In yonder peaceful glade His favourite game the Royal Martyr play’d. Here, stripped of honours, freedom, rank, Drank from the bowl, and bowled for what he drank; Sought in a cheerful glass his cares to drown, And chang’d his guinea ere he lost his crown. The site of the bowling green, now an orchard, is still pointed out, but the public-house has been removed to a site close to the high road.

13 The Cravens held Caversham Park until the early days of the 18th century, when it was sold to the Earl of Kildare, who re-sold it in 1718, according to the Rawlinson MS., Parks garden Royalties under an Act of Parliament by auction to the Lord Cadogan. This Lord Cadogan was Quartermaster-General to Marlborough during his most important campaigns. The Dictionary of National Biography speaks of him as follows: “As a soldier Cadogan must be ranked among the ablest staff officers the British Army has produced,” but contemporary opinion was not so complimentary. Bishop Atterbury says of him: “Ungrateful to the ungrateful man he grew by, A big, bad, bold, blustering, bloody, blundering booby.” His reign here was a short one, as he died in 1726, and was buried privately at night in Henry VII.’s Chapel at Westminster, where, to the best of my knowl- edge there is no monument to his memory. William, Earl Cadogan, who was also Viscount Caversham and Baron Cadogan of Reading left no son, and was succeeded in the Barony only by his brother Charles, who held the estate 50 years, dying in 1776. The following is the obituary notice in the Annual Regis- ter, September 24: “The Right Hon. Charles, Lord Cadogan, Baron of Oakley, Colonel of the Sec- ond Troop of Horse Guards, Governor of Gravesend and Tilbury Fort, a Gen- eral in his Majesty’s Forces, a Trustee of the British Museum, and F.R.S., in the 92nd year of his age.” It has always appeared to me strange that in an age of monuments nothing of the kind was placed in Caversham Parish Church to the memory of the Cado- gans, especially as the register records the burial of the 2nd Peer bearing that title. Mr. Henry Dormer has been good enough to lend for this evening the coat-of-arms which was fixed by the same Charles, Lord Cadogan, over the old entrance near the fir trees on Caversham Hill. In a book entitled Vitruvius Britannicus, published in 1725, there is an engraved plan of Caversham House and grounds, which shows it to have been at that time a place of great mag- nificence. There were three long avenues on south, and a broad avenue on the north; also a second canal of similar size to that now existing. The terrace is described as 1,300 yards long, and immediately below it was a parterre with statues, fountains, &c., the statues including King William III., George I., the Duke of Marlborough, and Prince Eugene, all, says the text, so like that they are known at sight. It is often stated that the grounds were laid out by the celebrated landscape gardener Capability Brown, but this appears erroneous, as the book have quoted from remarks, “These gardens were formed by Mr. Acres, where he has left lasting monuments of his capacity.” The third Lord Cadogan married the daughter and heiress of Sir Hans Sloane, and thus ac- quired the valuable Chelsea property. He sold Caversham in 1783 to Colonel Marsack, from whose family it passed by purchase to the Crawshays. An en- graving of the north front of the house in 1794 shows that the avenue had been removed, and it must be confessed the place looks very uninviting. Of other houses in Caversham the Rectory is by far the oldest, and the staircase dated 1638, is in perfect preservation. It is a remarkably fine example of the woodwork of its period, and I am surprised that a drawing of such an artistic

14 and antiquarian treasure has never been published. There were up to a period in Mr. H. J. Simonds’s memory two large tithe barns attached to the Rectory; these were of course useless after the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act in 1835, and were pulled down. In addition to the staircase there are some interesting remains of Gothic architecture built into the walls of the Rectory premises. I am inclined to think, however, that no part of the present structure was built before 1638. The Loveday family, whose descendants are now settled at the extreme north end of this county, lived here during the whole of the last century; their monuments may be seen in the chancel. Thomas Loveday, citizen and goldsmith, of London, whose memorial tablet is that nearest to the west on the south wall, became lessee of the Rectory in 1665, the house having been previously occupied by families named Browne and Alexander, by one of whom the staircase and old part of the house must have been built. There is little to record of the remaining houses in the parish. Kidmore End House furnished two High Sheriffs to the County, Thomas Willats, Esq., in 1772, and another, Thomas Woollats, Esq. in 1792; and David Fell Esq., who served the same office in 1790, resided at The Grove. Before proceeding to the more modern history of the parish it may be well to call attention to the part taken by Caversham during the Siege of Reading in 1643. Briefly it was this. The garrison of the town was commanded by Sir Arthur Aston, who had an outpost at Caversham Bridge, and set up a piece of ordnance on the Church tower. The Parliamentary force came from Windsor, by way of Henley, and erected a fort on Caversham Hill. It is said that a severe skirmish took place in Balmers Fields. In corroboration of this statement I may mention the fact that human bones and a cannon ball were found some years back when excavating for a house in Prospect Street. In the end the gunner was dislodged from the tower, and the Royal troops were driven back across the bridge, which Essex finally crossed, encamping his troops in the meadows on the Berkshire side. There he remained for about a fortnight making prepa- rations for the reduction of the town. Meanwhile the Governor found means to communicate with the King, who was at Oxford and sent a party of horse under Colonel Wilmot to relieve the garrison, which they managed to do so far as to throw in a small supply of ammunition. Essex having been reinforced by Sir William Waller, the King determined to move with part of his army to the relief of the town, coming through Wallingford on the Oxfordshire side of the river, and a stubborn engagement was fought in defence of the bridge. The Royal troops were however, entirely defeated, and the King, finding all his ef- forts to gain the passage of the to be ineffectual retreated with the remainder of his forces to Caversham Park. When Mr. Howes’s residence at West Dene was built, a few years back, two skeletons were found about two feet underground close to the road. There is little doubt in my own mind that they were soldiers killed during this disastrous attempt of Charles I. to relieve his devoted garri- son at Reading. After this terms were made, and the brave defenders marched out. The contemporary chronicle says, “Col. Aston (who had been wounded during the siege) came out first in a horse litter covered with red and lined with white, after two coaches and wagons, and the horse and foote beate a march and so departed with colours fying towards Oxford by Casum church.” Although at the present day it is the fashion to sneer at Lord Macaulay’s history as being romantic and interesting rather than accurate, I do not think anyone

15 can doubt that the wonderful third chapter gives a reliable general account of the state of England during the last quarter of the seventeenth century, and of the rural portion of the country so described Caversham was a typical cor- ner. Sir Anthony Craven was the dominant person in the lower portion of the parish, and the Brigham family were paramount at Cane End. The Reading and Hatfield turnpike road was not made until long after, and roads generally were mere tracks. The bridge with its narrow causeway was probably sufficient for its traffic, as the few villagers were for the most part engaged in agriculture. As to the condition of the parish during the eighteenth century considerable infor- mation is to be gained from the books preserved in the parish chest, consisting of church wardens’ overseers’, and surveyors’ accounts. It should be remem- bered that formerly each parish managed and provided for its own poor, there were no Unions and the overseers elected annually were practically the sole judges as to which paupers should receive relief. The following extracts were taken quite haphazard, but are fair specimens of the whole: 1731. Paid the Newbury Woman. This occurs frequently, but I cannot make out the Newbury woman’s identity. 1732. Paid the night as the book was signed spent at a motting 7s. Ditto 3s. Motting meant meeting. These parochial assemblies were held at the Griffin, then the only village hostelry, and as several of those composing the vestry travelled some miles it was, I think, natural that they should require refresh- ment. 1734. Spent at the Cattarn Wheel 6s. This was the Catherine Wheel at Henley, the occasion being the annual visit of the overseers to get their accounts al- lowed by the Magistrates. The same year, spent at the Mitten 5s. and 2s. 10d.; also a Sheat for Mr. Vian 3s., a pair of shoes for ditto Newbury Wash? 4s. Spent at the Parish meeting 12s. 6d. This must have been a heavy night, and one can only regret that the good overseers had no Local Government Board auditor to face at the end of their year of office. 1738. To the Newbury child. Widow Weston of Shiplack. 1746. Chalkers Green. In 1748-9, a lady, Mrs. Willats, of Kidmore, was overseer, and her accounts are remarkably well kept. 1757. A coffin Robert french 8s. for bringing him to church and beer 8s. A wrap- per for him 3s. 6d. Paid the burial 3s. 6d. In 1753 the the entry occurs, paid the Marshal money £1 7s. 7d., and subsequently paid the Marshalsea money £1 9s. 6d. This I do not understand. In 1767, Feb. 13, occurs the following: “Clarks wife told me a story in saying her husband hurt himself and could not stir. Never to have a farthing.” 1794. Paid for the postage of a letter from Abingdon one shilling. This shows the cost of postal communication a century ago. In the Churchwarden’s Accounts there are also many curious and interesting entries: April 8th, 1787. Paid for a polecat 4d. April 26th, 8 Sparrowheads 2d. July lst, 1787. Paid for a hedgehog. It may surprise our present Churchwardens to find that their predecessors were responsible for the extermination of the parish vermin.

16 1788. To cash received of Mr. Marsack for opening the ground in church for the interment of his son. Nov. 21, 1788. Payed for a form of prayer for his Majesty in illness 3s. 6d. This, it will be understood, alludes to the dreadful malady that saddened the later part of King George the 3rd’s reign. On March 6, 1789, there is another entry, Paid for a form of prayer of thanksgiving for his Majesty’s recovery from his late indisposition 3s. 6d., and again March 19, the same year, Paid for a leg of mutton for the ringers, a day of celebration for the King’s recovery, 6s. 10½d. October 7th, 1791. Paid James Freebody, John Binfield, and Harry King, for cleaning a watering place for the cattle in Hay mead 10. 0. Hay Mead was the name applied to the meadows between Mr. Knighton’s field and the Mill, then unenclosed. June 18th, 1794. For the ringers on account of the glorious victory obtained by Lord Howe over the French fleet on the 1st day of June, 1794. 10. 6. News travelled slowly in those days. In November, 1795, there is an allusion to his Majesty’s merciful preservation when going to Parliament houses. January 17th, 1792. For a pitch pipe for the company of singers 5s. April 28th, 1801. Paid for altering the form of prayer in consequence of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1s., which, as the alteration was only the insertion of three words on the title page, was decidedly expensive. The last entry I have taken is one we should all like to be repeated annually. 1801, October 2. Paid for a form of prayer on account of a plentiful crop of corn and a fine harvest. In Caversham Church rest the remains of a scholar and poet who in his day had considerable fame. The Rev. James Merrick, b. 1720, d. 1769, resided here, and was responsible for the Latin inscription on the tablet to his parents’ memory at the west end of the north aisle in the Church. He brought out a version of the Psalms translated or paraphrased into English verse, which was condemned by his contemporaries as being diffuse and not a true rendering of the proper meaning. The only work that still survives is the poetical fable called The Chameleon, commencing: Oft it has been my lot to mark A proud, conceited, talking spark, With eyes that hardly served at most To guard their master ’gainst a post. This was always inserted in the selections of poetry for use in schools in my day, and has, I venture to think, sufficient literary merit to keep its place in such manuals. There is still extant a small volume published in 1809 entitled The Stranger in R.eading. After speaking of Caversham Park the author remarks, “In the same neighbourhood, but in my opinion much better situated in point of prospect, is a little thatched cottage belonging to a Mr. Williams.” Then he continues, “I cannot give you a better idea of the distant objects seen from this delightful

17 spot than by transcribing the following lines I picked up in an old newspaper.” There are 15 stanzas, of which the two following are interesting to us: Now, Farewell Reading, with thy train Of Puritanic tricks for gain. Thy praise let others sing. A nobler theme demands my lays, Where Nature all her charms displays In everlasting Spring. First, Caversham, with all its charms Of Rural Cottages and farms Appears below the Hill, Its Church, where Barry’s powers prevail, Its pleasant meads and lovely vale, Its meadows and its mill. After the verses is the remark “At a small distance from the house is a physic garden belonging to the same gentleman, where a chalybeate spring has lately been discovered, which from the great benefit several persons have already received from drinking the waters promises to be of great service in the cure of various diseases.” This spring was, and I presume still is, in the grounds of Grove Hill, and the water was once sufficiently in vogue to be sent by carrier to Henley and Reading. Dr. Plot, a curious old writer, published in 1705 a very quaint book called The Natural History of Oxfordshire, which contains several allusions to this parish. The following would suggest a different origin for the name of Gallows Tree Common to that commonly accepted. One naturally thinks of a gibbet and a skeleton hanging in chains, instead of the freak of nature mentioned by Dr. Plot. “There were two Beeches in the way from Oxford to Reading, near a place called Cain End, more strangely joyned together a great height from the ground, for the bodies of these trees come from different Roots and ascend par- allel to the Top, but are joyned together a little before they come to the bough by a transverse piece of timber entring into each End into the Bodies of the Trees, and growing jointly with them, for which reason ’tis commonly called the Gallows-Tree.” There is an allusion to a mill at Caversham for making French Barley, but no explanation is given of what that article was and Lord Craven’s seat at Caversham is cited as one of the most eminent private seats in this county. I am able to exhibit the volume, and the plan attached is strong evidence in favour of my contention that the old house in Caversham Park was very near the present mansion. In the nineteenth century Caversham has had to suffer the destruction of much that was beautiful and interesting. I have already alluded to the old Church and the old Bridge, but the greatest loss of all was the old Commons. So late as in the early sixties large Commons existed at Cane End and Emmer Green, and numerous open spaces remained, including The Moor and Mill Green, with access to the River at Lower Caversham. These were all ruthlessly taken from the public in 1865 by an inclosure award which in its way is a curiosity, the map showing what could be done even at that date where the general public was apathetic. Every little bit of greensward by the side of a country lane, every odd corner of so-called waste, in fact every bit of open space was quietly

18 annexed and awarded to the adjacent land owner. There are some allotments at Emmer Green, it is true, intended for the labouring poor, but as their full extent barely exceeds an acre and a half they are scarcely worthy of mention. The little cricket ground was awarded to a landowner subject to the right of the people to use it for recreation, but the freehold was sold and the purchaser attempted to close the ground against the public. Certain heroic spirits, however, asserted their rights, and, despite proceedings before the Henley Bench of Magistrates, they gained the day, and the Emmer Green recreation ground remains the only public place for outdoor amusements in this large parish. Public opinion has moved on since those days, but there is no repairing the mischief. Would that our predecessors had remembered the couplet All should unite to guard what all may share; The general good should be the general care. A previous inclosure in 1834 had dealt with the open fields under cultivation and diverted several roads, the pincipal of which was one running from the top of Little Hill to Caversham Hill, which would be very useful if it existed now. A slight reference to the electoral conditions of the parish in days gone by must practically conclude my lecture. In 1754 there was a remarkable contested elec- tion for Oxfordshire, the candidates being Sir Edward Turner and Viscount Parker, ancestor of the present Member for South Oxon, representing the New Interest, as it was called, and Sir James Dashwood and Viscount Wenman, who represented the Old Interest, suspected of leanings towards the Jacobite party. The contest was fought out very bitterly on both sides. Squibs, lampoons, and scurrilous literature were distributed throughout the county with great profu- sion. The poll, which lasted six days, took place in Broad Street, Oxford, there being a separate polling-place for each of the 14 hundreds in the county. No less than 56 freeholders made the journey from Caversham and recorded their votes, 27 on one side and 29 on the other, so that here, at any rate, opinion was nearly equally divided. There are only five names of the 56 recorded which are now at all familiar in the parish. These are Berry, Leach, Frewin, Fuller, and Knight. Caesar Berry was the ancestor of the late Mr. Arthur Berry, and Hugh Leach of the late Mr. William Leach. Neither the Vanderstegen nor the Loveday of the time voted, and Lord Cadogan as a Peer could not do so, although he was a supporter of Parker and Turner, or what may be called the Whig interest, as was Mr. John Loveday. In the end the High Sheriff made a double return of all four candidates, and the matter being referred to Parliament the seats were ultimately awarded to Parker and Turner, although they were lowest on the poll. The great Reform election of 1831, when the poll was still taken entirely at Oxford, does not seem to have deeply stirred the good people of Caversham, as only 22 freeholders recorded their votes, and of these I very much doubt if anyone survives. Of the 22, seven only opposed reform, and of these two were non-resident. The limits of time, and I fear of your patience, are now exhausted, and, al- though sensible of many omissions, I have done my best to point out the most salient features connected with Old Caversham, and to avoid as far as possible anything of a controversial character. Moreover, everything I have stated has been verified by reference to recognised authorities. In conclusion I venture

19 to claim that I have at least vindicated the position from which I started—that Caversham is very far from being a place without a history.

20