Henley Archaeological and Historical Group

INVESTIGATIONS to find a construction date for the Chantry House in Henley through tree ring work have proved unsuccessful — until now.

Three things have come together recently to overcome the problem.

Firstly, Councillor Kellie Hinton arranged a research grant of £ 1,000 for the Henley Archaeological & Historical Group from South Oxfordshire District Council.

It was decided to use the money to find out more about the town’s historic buildings, many of which had already been researched by members over previous decades.

Secondly, a new, more accurate method of using stable isotope dating was written up in Vernacular Architecture Journal, Vol 50 by Dr Dan Miles, who has done all the local dendro dating over many years.

This included the Old Bell (1325), the splendid timber-framed house at 14 Friday Street (1590) and the former Old Broad Gates Inn in Market Place (1353).

The second of these is a Tudor house and the last is a rare medieval survivor from the reign of Edward III which was probably the first building on the Upper Market Place burgage plot.

Thirdly, group secretary and buildings historian Ruth Gibson came across the article and, recognising the author’s name, asked Dr Miles whether he could try out the isotope method, using the grant money, to help find the date for the Chantry House, a landmark Henley building.

The cores he took from the oak timbers were so good (60 to 70 rings each) that he managed to find matching dated samples from his own tree ring curves.

Furthermore, he was able to use the old and tested dendrochronology method without having to wait for the considerably more expensive Oxford University labs to re-open for the isotope test, thus saving time and money.

As a result, Dr Miles has solved the mystery (after long-standing speculation) of not only when the so-called Chantry House (priest lodgings) was built, but also helped to work out who probably built it and what its original purpose really was.

Several of the oaks for its construction were dated as having been felled in the spring of 1461.

Most of the carpentry work to turn the oak trees into beams, struts, joists, posts, braces and rafters would have been carried out very soon afterwards, as oak needs to be worked while green.

So what is the historical context for 1461?

Edward IV came to the throne that year, displacing the feeble-minded Henry VI and bringing a temporary peace in the War of the Roses. Was the Chantry House built due to an upswing in trade, especially the wool trade?

There is documentary evidence that in 1445 John Elmes and John Devene, both from leading local merchant families, bought “a building and a vacant plot adjoining east of the churchyard”.

This always pointed to a building, possibly occupied by the oldest part of the Red Lion, with a vacant plot adjoining it for another building, i.e. waiting and ready to be built on in 1461.

What can the building itself tell us?

There is its prominent location by the Thames, closer to the bank than now as the river was wider then. Furthermore, it is downstream of the restricting medieval stone arches of the earlier bridge, so affording the best possible access for arriving and departing boats heading downstream.

The riverside ground floor of the Chantry House was open-fronted with only heavy oak posts supporting the east elevation, thus giving easy access to and shelter for goods in transit.

The floor above towards the town has a very wide main doorway and elegantly carved spandrels (later this type of depressed arch became known as a Tudor Arch and was in widespread use) and invites visitors, and their goods, in from the town at street level.

The large room of three bays provided the necessary space for a trading floor. By 1552, the deeds tell us, the Chantry House was sold as a school house by Devene’s successors, the previous use having apparently failed.

Eventually the removal of all the internal dividing walls and the ceiling at top floor level turned this part into the large, aisled hall suitable for the grammar school that it became.

The second floor had originally been divided into a long corridor on the riverside with five rooms off it.

The southern bay has evidence in the south gable framing showing that it was originally connected to an existing building by a now blocked doorway in the south-west corner.

This is an original feature as the wide brace, traditionally intended to strengthen the corner, had to be inserted further along the gable wall. We can see the same structural “adjustment” on the ground floor next to the wide townside doorway, where the brace had to make way for the larger than usual doorway.

You can well imagine the disputes between the carpentry workshop (usually off site) and the master carpenter as it was necessary to adjust traditional working practices to this tight building plot, cheek by jowl with the church, the adjoining Red Lion (or its predecessor), the river landing stages and the steeply rising ground.

Our thanks to the rector and churchwardens of St Mary’s Church for generously allowing access to the building.

Ruth Gibson