Robert Barker's Charity is usually said to have been established by him in 1644, the year before he died in debtor's prison, but its origins actually go back much further than that. It took the present researcher some years to find the documents and make sense of them, and there are still questions unanswered. The recently refurbished Royal Stag pub is the building owned by the Trust and a framed account of its history hangs on the wall there, but it does not tell the whole story.

The first clue suggesting that the whole affair was more complicated than it seemed was a letter among the parish church's papers in the vestry. This was an early 20^th century query addressed to the vicar, asking if he knew of a bridge in Datchet in Elizabethan times as he had come across a document referring to one in the 12^th year of Elizabeth's reign (1568). The letter writer had correctly assumed there was no Thames bridge until the 1700s and was puzzled by the reference. There is no evidence of how the vicar of the time answered the letter-writer, but it lay in the church's archives as a vital clue waiting to be followed up.

Recently, this original 1568 document referred to was tracked down at the Public Record Office and it does indeed refer to a cottage and land called 'Churchlands' in Datchet, granted 'for the use of maintaining Datchett Bridge'. The bridge must have already been in existence by then because there is no mention of actually building it at that date. Four of the chief inhabitants of the village are named as receiving and applying the profits of 'Churchlands', but they are not referred to as trustees nor is a Bridge Trust mentioned.

The present interpretation (by this researcher) is as follows:

1) There was a pool or watercourse in the centre of the village, roughly in the place of the present Greens, and the bridge in question crossed it at a point from the top of the High Street to near the modern Pharmacy. No pictures exist of this bridge, but maps from the1830s show that the road did cross the pool there by that date, and it is presumed it had done so previously.

2) 'Churchlands' is suggested as a likely name for the present Royal Stag which is later known as the 'Bridge House' of the Trust (as well as having a pub name), as it is so close to the church itself. The Manor of Datchet was owned by Queen Elizabeth who would have been able to designate the profits from leasing the property to pay for upkeep of the bridge, which was then the normal way of paying for such repairs.

3) The named inhabitants would have passed on their responsibilities in turn, or have been replaced by others on their death, and Robert Barker was probably left as the last 'trustee' by the 1640s.

The next document, dated 1644, is usually cited as Barker's establishment of his Bridge Trust, but it really just repeats the Elizabethan transfer of responsibilities to a new set of inhabitants on payment of 40 shillings to Barker, without mentioning a trust by name. However, it may demonstrate that Robert Barker was ensuring that the property remained in the hands of villagers for its original purpose and could not be considered his own asset on his death as a debtor.

From then until the 1720s the arrangements continued as before, with another deed of 1687 made for passing on the responsibility, until once again there was only one surviving 'trustee', Benjamin Lane. At this point the matter was taken to the Court of Chancery for a legal opinion on the ownership of £128 found in the 'Datchett Bagg' on the death of Benjamin Lane, and on the charitable purposes to which this and other profits should be put. It was only then that the term Robert Barker's Bridge House Trust came into formal use. The Elizabethan history of the Bridge House seems to have been forgotten and the court took the 1644 deed as stating Barker's intention to set up a bridge-repairing charity. It is typical of Robert Barker that he should be remembered as its instigator when in fact he was not.

The court's judgement in 1724 deemed that the purposes of the Trust should in future be:

1) To repair or new build the Bridge and the Bridge House

This last item refers to the building we know as The Bridge drop-in centre, which was a parish poorhouse from Elizabethan times. The reason why the Bridge House Trust should be involved with the almshouse is unclear, but may be simply because the two properties were (and still are) adjacent.

From this point the minutes and accounts of the Trust exist in an unbroken series, deposited in Bucks County Record Office at Aylesbury. They detail the work undertaken by the trustees, incidentally providing information about the village in the 18^th and 19^th centuries which does not survive anywhere else. Bridge repairs and road building, flood defences and footpath-making absorbed most of their energies, but by the 1840s, a decision was taken to deal with the problem of the watercourse once and for all by culverting it underground, creating the dry land of the Greens. The Trust's brick vaulted culvert still channels surface water from the village centre out to the ditch on the rec.

During the later 19^th century, when none of the original purposes were still applicable, the church gradually took control of the profits by virtue of the chief Trustees being the Vicar and Churchwardens of the church. In 1864 the Charity Commissioners decreed that the provisions should be:

the upkeep of the Parish Church

the maintenance of footpaths, drainage, sewers and riverbanks

gas lighting and waterpiping in the village.

In 1888 responsibility for a fire brigade and drinking fountains was added to the list. With the establishment of the Parish Council in 1894, most of these functions were taken over by this new authority and the Trust contributed about two-thirds of its income towards these general expenses.

By 1947 there was a great deal of animosity between the Trust and the Parish Council as neither body was represented on the other but each wanted a say in the other's business and finances. The Parish Council also accused the Church of having 'hi-jacked' the Trust in 1864 for its own benefit, which was no part of Robert Barker's original intention. Acrimonious arguments, angry letters, refusals to attend meetings and general obstruction on all sides continued until a new Charity Commission Scheme (the current one) was drawn up in 1960 to resolve the situation.

It ensured that the Parish Council could no longer divert Trust funds into its own general funds, by establishing three 'branches' of the Barker Bridge House Trust. These are:

the BBHT Estate Branch, responsible for its property, the Royal Stag and land in Southlea Road, and letting at commercial rates

the BBHT Church or Ecclesiastical Branch which applies 40% of the total income to the maintenance of the Parish Church

the BBHT Non-Ecclesiastical Branch, which applies the the rest of the income to purposes which benefit the people of the parish as a whole, and which are not otherwise funded from local rates or taxes.

The recent history of the Trust shows how well its resources have been managed from the original endowment so that the income is considerable in modern terms. It is amazing that the simple grant of a cottage and a plot of land for the upkeep of a road bridge in Elizabethan times (or perhaps even earlier) should be providing a range of substantial grants to enhance the life of the village in so many ways more than 300 years later. And Robert Barker, a man who did nothing by halves, would have been delighted that his name is attached to such a significant undertaking - even eclipsing Queen Elizabeth I who should really be credited with its foundation.