seed sown upon the waters, we are told, may bring forth fruit after many days. this chapter tells the story of seed sown on very stony soil, which brought forth fruit twenty-five years later.

in 1878, mr. george anderson, an eminent consulting gas engineer, in whom business had not abated human sympathy, passed every morning on his way to his chambers in westminster, by the lambeth palace grounds. he was struck by the contrast of the spacious and idle acres adjoining the palace and the narrow, dismal streets where poor children peered in corners and alleys. the sheep in the palace grounds were fat and florid, and the children in the street were lean and pallid. the smoke from works around dyed dark the fleece of the sheep.

mr. anderson thought how much happier a sight it would be to see the children take the place of the sheep, and asked me if something could not be done.

the difficulty of rescuing or of alienating nine acres of land from the church, so skilled in holding, did not seem a hopeful undertaking, while the resentment of good vicars and expectant curates might surely be counted upon. nevertheless the attempt was worth making.

before long i spent portions of some days in exploring the palace grounds, and interviewing persons who had evidence to give, or interest to use, on behalf of a change which seemed so desirable.

eventually i brought the matter before a meeting i knew to be interested in ethical improvement, and read to them the draft of a memorial that i thought ought to be sent to the archbishop at lambeth palace. persons in stations low and high alike, often suffer wrong to exist which they might arrest, because they have not seen it to be wrong or have not been told that it is so. blame of any one could not be justly expressed who had not personal knowledge of an evil complained of. therefore i urged that we should give the archbishop information which we thought justified his action, and i was authorised to send to him the memorial i had read.

i wrote myself to his grace, stating that i could testify as to the social facts detailed in the memorial i enclosed, which was as follows:—

"may it please your grace,—we, the evening congregation assembled in south place chapel, finsbury—some assenting and some dissenting from the tenets represented by your grace—represented as worthily as by any one who has occupied your high station, and with greater fairness to those who stand outside the church than is shown by many prelates—we pray your grace to give heed to a secular plea on behalf of certain little neighbours of yours whom, amid the pressure of spiritual duties, your grace may have overlooked.

"crouching under the very walls of lambeth palace, where your grace has the pleasant responsibility of illustrating the opulence and paternal sympathy of the legal church of the land, lie streets as dismal, cheerless, and discreditable as any that god in his wrath ever permitted to remain unconsumed. in the houses are polluted air, squalor, dirt and pale-faced children. the only green thing upon which their feverish eyes could look is enclosed in your grace's palace park, and shut out from their sight by dead walls. what we pray is that your grace, in mercy and humanity, will substitute for those penal walls some pervious palisades through which children may behold the refreshing paradise of nature, though they may never enter therein. in this ever-crowding metropolis, where field and tree belong to the extinct sights of a happier age, children are born and die without ever knowing their soothing charm, and hunger and thirst for a green thing to look upon—as sojourners in a desert do for the sight of shrub or water. no prayer your grace could offer to heaven would be so welcome in its kindly courts, as the prayer of gladness and gratitude which would go up with the screams of change and joy from the pallid little ones, breathing the fresh air from the green meadows, which only a few more fortunate sheep now enjoy.

"might we pray that the gates should be open, and that the children themselves should be free to enter the meadows? even the temple gardens of the city are open to little friendless people. they who give this gracious permission are hard-souled lawyers, usually regarded as representing the rigid, exacting, and unsympathetic side of human life—yet they show such noble tenderness to the little miserables who crawl round the temple pavement, that they grant entrance to their splendid gardens; and half-clad cellar urchins from the purlieus of drury lane and clare market romp with their ragged sisters on the glorious grass, in the sight and scent of beauteous flowers. if lawyers do this, may we not ask it of one who is appointed to represent what we are told is the kindliness and tenderness of christianity, and whose master said, 'suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven'? we ask not that they should personally approach your grace, but that the children of your desolate neighbourhood should be allowed to disport in the vacant meadows of the palace—that their souls may acquire some scent of nature which their lives may never know.

"let your grace take a walk down 'royal street,' which flanks your palace grounds, and see whether houses so pestilential ever stood in a street of so dainty a name? go into the houses (as the writer of this memorial has) and see how a blank wall has been kept up so that no occupant of the rooms may look on grass or tree, and the window which admits light and air has been turned, by order of a former archbishop, the opposite way upon an outlook as wretched as the lot of the inhabitants. for forty years many inmates have lived and slept by the side of your grace's park, without ever being allowed a glimpse of it. you may have no power to cancel such social outrage—but your grace may. condone it by kindly and considerately according the use of the meadows to the poor children—doomed to burrow in these close, unwholesome tenements at your doors.

"no one accuses your grace of being wanting in personal kindliness. it must be that no one has called your attention to the unregarded misery under the shadow of your palace. should your grace visit the forlorn streets and sickly homes around you, and hear the despairing words of the mothers when asked 'whether they would not be grateful could their children have a daily run in the great archbishop's meadows?' there would not be wanting a plea from the gentle heart of the lady of the palace on behalf of these hapless children of these poor mothers.

"disregard not our appeal, we pray, because ours are unlicensed voices. humanity is of every creed, and it will not detract from the glory of the church that gratitude and praise should proceed from unaccustomed tongues.

"signed on behalf of the assembly, with deference and respect.

"george jacob holyoake.

"newcastle chambers, temple bar,

"november 21, 1878."

within two days i had the pleasure to receive a reply from the archbishop.

"philpstoun house,

"november 23, 1878.

"sir,—you may feel confident that the subject of the memorial which you have forwarded to me with your letter of the 21st will receive my attentive consideration. the condition of the inhabitants of the poor streets in lambeth has often given me anxiety. my daughters and mrs. tait are well acquainted with many of the houses which you describe, and, so far as my other duties have allowed, i have taken opportunities of visiting some of the inmates of such houses personally. i should esteem it a great privilege if i were able to assist in maturing any scheme for improving the dwellings of the poor families to which your memorial alludes. respecting the use of the open ground which surrounds lambeth palace, i have, in common with my predecessors, had the subject often under consideration. the plan which has been adopted and which has appeared on the whole the best for the interests of the neighbourhood, has been that now pursued for many years. the ground is freely given for cricket and football to as many schools and clubs as it is capable of containing, and, on application, liberty of entrance is accorded to children and others. many school treats are also held in the grounds, and they are from time to time used for volunteer corps to exercise in. we have always been afraid that a more public opening of the grounds would interfere with the useful purposes to which they are at present turned for the benefit of the neighbourhood, and that, considering the somewhat limited extent of the space, no advantage could be secured by throwing it entirely open, which would at all compensate for the loss of the advantages at present enjoyed. i shall give the matter serious consideration, consulting with those best qualified from local experience to judge what is best for the neighbourhood, but my present impression is that more good is, on the whole, done by the arrangements now adopted, than by any other which i could devise.

"i have the honour to be, sir,

"your obedient humble servant,

"a. c. cantuar.

"to mr. george jacob holyoake."

this correspondence i sent to the daily news, always open to questions of interest to the people, and it received notice in various papers. the liverpool daily mail gave an effective summary of the memorial, saying:—

"of all strange people in the world, mr. g. j. holyoake and the archbishop of canterbury have been in correspondence—and not in unfriendly correspondence either. mr. holyoake, on behalf of himself and some friends like-minded, ventured to draw the archbishop's attention to the fact that just opposite lambeth palace was a nest of very poor and squalid dwellings, in which many families were crowded together, without any regard for either decency or sanitary law. the only chance of looking upon anything green that the children of these poor people could have would be in the grounds that surround the primate's dwelling, and these were absolutely shut off from their view by a high dead wall. in some cases a former archbishop had actually ordered the windows of these miserable houses to be blocked up, and opened in another direction, in order, we suppose, that the archiepiscopal eyes might not be offended by the sight of such unpleasant neighbours." the writer ended by expressing the hope that if the archbishop could not open the grounds he might substitute "pervious palisades" for the stone walls impervious to the curious and wistful eyes of children. for reasons which will appear, the subject slumbered for four years, when i addressed the following letter to the editors of the telegraph and the times, which appeared december 20, 1882:—

"sir,—on returning to england i read an announcement that the lambeth vestry had resolved to send a memorial to the queen praying that the nine acres of field, now devoted to sheep, adjoining the archbishop of canterbury's palace garden, may be appropriated to public recreation in that crowded and verdureless parish. four years ago i sent a memorial upon this subject to the late archbishop. it set forth that the parish was so densely populated that it would be an act of mercy to throw open the sheep fields to the poor children of the neighbourhood. it expressed the hope that mrs. tait, whose compassionate nature was known to the people, would plead for these little ones, who lived and died at her very door, as it were, seeing no green thing during all their wretched days. i visited poor women in the street next to the fields who brought fever-stricken children to the door wrapped in shawls. their mothers told me how glad they should be were the gates open, that the little ones, whose only recreation ground was the gutter, could enter at will. the memorial—if i remember accurately, for i cannot refer to it as i write—stated that the houses which, as built, overlooked the fields, had had the windows bricked in by order of a former archbishop, because they overlooked the garden. i was taken to the rooms and found that the view was closed up. the trees of the garden have well grown now, and a telescope could not reveal walkers therein. the late archbishop sent me a kindly reply, but it did not answer my question, which was that, if his grace could not consent to open the gates to his humble friends, we prayed that he, whose master (in words of tenderness which had moved the hearts of men during nineteen centuries) had said, 'suffer little children to come unto me,' would at least substitute palisades for the dead walls which hid the green fields so that no little eyes could see the daisies in the spring. his grace's reply was in substance the same as dr. randall davidson's, which appeared in the times on monday, who tells the public that rifle corps and cricketers are admitted to the fields and that 'arrangements are made for "treats" for infant and other schools' (whether of all denominations is not stated). how can poor mothers and sickly children get within these 'arrangements'? cricketers are not helpless, rifle corps do not die for want of drill-grounds, as children in fever-dens do for want of the refreshment of verdure and pure air. to open the gates is the only generous and fitting thing to do, as the lawyers have who admit the outcasts of drury and the adjacent lanes to the flowers of the temple gardens. dr. davidson says that the advice of those 'best qualified from local experience to judge' is that 'no gain could be secured by throwing the fields entirely open.' let the opinion be asked of workmen in the lambeth factories and that of their wives. these are the 'best qualified local judges,' whose verdict would be instructive. mrs. tait's illness and death followed soon after the memorial in question was sent in, and i thought it not the time to press his grace further when stricken with that calamity. all honour to the lambeth vestry, which proposes to pray her majesty to cause, if in her power, these vacant fields to be consigned to the board of works, who will give some gleam of a green paradise to the poor little ones of lambeth. the vestry does well to appeal to the queen, from whose kindly heart a thousand acts of sympathy have emanated. she has opened many portals, but none through which happier or more grateful groups will pass than through the garden gates of lambeth palace."

immediately a letter appeared in the times from the rev. t. b. robertson, expressed as follows:—

"sir,—mr. holyoake may be glad to hear that 'lambeth green' is open to schools of all denominations to hold their festivals in. i should think that no school was ever refused the use unless the field was previously engaged. the present method of utilising the field—viz., opening it to a large but limited number of persons (by ticket) seems about the best that could be devised. mr. holyoake asks how poor mothers and sickly children are to gain entrance. it is well known in the neighbourhood that tickets of admission are issued annually. the days for distribution are advertised on the gates some time previous, when those desirous of using the grounds can attend, and the tickets are issued till exhausted. no sick person has any difficulty in getting admission. i do not know the number of tickets issued, but i have seen when cricket clubs were unable to find a place to pitch their stumps. if the grounds are open to the public without limitation, it seems that the only way it could be done would be by laying it out in gardens and gravelled walks, with the usual park seats; but there is hardly occasion for such a place since the formation of the thames embankment, a long strip of which runs immediately in front of the palace well provided with seats. it is evident that if the grounds were open to the public in general, the space being small—about seven acres—the cricketers and other clubs would have to give up their sports, and lambeth schools and societies would be deprived of their only meeting-place for summer gatherings.

"yours obediently,

"t. b. robertson,

"curate of st. mary, lambeth.

"december 22."

the comment of the times upon this letter made it necessary to address a further communication to the editor. this comment occurred in a leader which, referring to a letter of the lambeth curate, says: "mr. holyoake, in a letter which we published on wednesday, asked with some vehemence, what was the value of permission accorded to cricketers and schools, to the poor children of lambeth; but mr. robertson, the curate of st. mary's, lambeth, answers this morning, that no poor or sick person has any difficulty in obtaining admission for purposes of recreation and health, and shows that 'lambeth green,' as it is called, is in fact available to a large class of the neighbouring inhabitants. there is certainly force in mr. robertson's argument, that an unlimited use would defeat its own object, which is presumably to preserve the grounds as a playground. the large surrounding population would soon destroy the sylvan and park-like character of the place, and necessitate its laying out in the style of an ornamental pleasure garden, with formal walks, and turf only to be kept green by fencing."

this is the old defence of exclusive enjoyment of parks and pleasure grounds, as the people, if admitted to them, would destroy them—which they do not. why should they destroy what they value?

my reply to the times appeared december 28, 1882:—

"sir,—it is the weight that you attach to the letter of the curate of st mary, lambeth, which appeared in the times of saturday, which makes it important. when i have viewed the lambeth palace from the railway which overlooks it and seen how completely the sheep fields are separate and apart from the archbishop's garden, it has seemed a pity that the poor little children of lambeth should not have the freedom and privilege of those sheep. no humane person could look into the houses of the crowded and cheerless streets which lie near the palace walls without wishing to take the children by the hand into the palace fields at once. does the rev. mr. robertson not understand the difference between a ticket gate and an open gate? how are poor, busy women to watch the gates to find out when the annual tickets of admission are given? and what is the chance of those families who arrive after 'the number issued is exhausted'? if all the persons who need admissions can have them, the gates might as well be thrown open. of course, the nine acres would not hold all the parish; but all the parish would not go at once. no statement has been made which shows that the grounds have been occupied by tickets of admission more than forty days in the year, whereas there are 365 days when little people might go in. to them one hour in that green paradise would be more than a week jostled by passengers on the embankment watching a stone wall, for the little people could not well overlook it. but if they could, can the curate of st. mary really think this limited recreation a sufficient substitute for quiet fields and flowers? the board of works, if the grounds come into their hands, may be trusted to give school treats a chance as well as local little children.

"no one who has seen the crowds of ragged, dreary, pale-faced boys and girls rushing to the fields and flowers at temple gardens when the lawyers graciously open the gates to them and watched them pour out at evening through the temple gates into fleet street, leaping, laughing, and refreshed, could help thinking that it would be a gladsome sight to see such groups issue from the lambeth palace gates. i never thought when sending the memorial to the archbishop that the fields should be divested from the see or sold away from it. i believed that the late archbishop would, as the new archbishop may, by an act of grace accord his little neighbours free admission, or at least exchange the dead walls for palisades, so that children playing around may vary the stones of the embankment for a sight of sheep and grass through the bars. the late canon kingsley asked me to visit him when he came into residence at westminster. my intention was to ask him and the late dean, whom i had the honour to know, to judge themselves whether the matter now in question was not practicable, and then to speak to the archbishop about it. but death carried them both away one after the other before this opportunity could occur. my belief remains unchanged that the late archbishop would have done what is now asked had time and the state of his health permitted him to attend to the matter himself. it would have been but an extension of the unselfish and kindly uses to which he had long permitted the grounds to be put."

from several letters i received at the time, i quote one dated christmas eve, 1882:—

"honour and thanks to you, mr. holyoake, for your recent and former letters respecting lambeth palace field. very much more good could be got out of it than as a place for cricketing on half-holidays and occasional school-treats, and for desolation at other times except as regards an approved few.

"there is no recreation ground in london that i look upon with so much satisfaction as a triangular inclosure of plain grass by kennington church, enjoyed commonly by the dirtiest and poorest children."

but a letter of a very different character appeared in the standard, december 20, 1882, entitled, "the lambeth palace garden ":—

"sir,—no right-minded person can fail to be deeply impressed by mr. holyoake's touching letter in your impression of to-day. its sentiments are so very beautiful and its principles so exactly popular, and in such perfect accordance with the blessed liberal maxim—'what is yours is mine and what is mine is my own,' that i myself am overcome with delight at their enunciation. the pleasure of being perfectly free and easy with other people's property, evidently becoming so sincere and abounding, and the simple manner in which such liberality can be now readily practised without any personal self-denial or inconvenience, makes the principle in action perfectly commendable, and one to be duly applied and most carefully expanded.

"with the latter view, i venture to point out that there is a very excellent library of books at lambeth palace, which, comparatively speaking, very few people take down or read. do not, however, think me selfishly covetous or hankering after my neighbour's property if i venture to point out that there exist more than twenty clergymen in lambeth, to whom a share or division of these scarcely used volumes would be a great boon. if the pictures, furniture, and cellars of wine could, at the same time, be benevolently divided, i should have no objection to receiving a share of the same under such philanthropic 're-arrangement'—i am, sir, your obedient servant,

"a lambeth parson.

"lambeth, december 20."

my reply to this letter appeared in the standard, december 22, 1882:—

"sir,—this morning i received a letter from a clergyman, who gives his name and address, and who knows lambeth well, thanking me for the letter which i had addressed to you, as he takes great interest in the welfare of the little ones in the crowded homes around the palace. lest, however, i should be elated by such an unexpected, though welcome, concurrence of opinion, the same post brought me a letter to the same purport of that signed 'a lambeth parson,' which appeared in the standard yesterday. the letter which you printed assumes that the sheep fields of the palace are private property, and that i propose to steal them in the name of humanity. permit me to say that i have as much detestation as the lambeth parson can have for that sympathy for the people which has plunder for its motive.

"the memorial i sent to his grace the late archbishop asked him to give his permission for little ones to enter his grounds. we never proposed to take permission, nor assumed any right to pass the gates. there never was a doubt in my mind, that had his grace opportunity of looking into the matter for himself, he would have granted the request, for his kindness of heart we all knew. that he gave the use of the fields to what he thought equally useful purposes showed how unselfishly he used the grounds. if the question is raised as to private property, i would do what i could to promote the purchase of it (if it can rightly be sold) by a penny subscription from the parents of the poor children and others who would chiefly benefit by it. it would be an evil day if working people could consent that their little ones should have enjoyment at the price of theft.—i am, sir, your obedient servant,

"george jacob holyoake.

"22, essex street, w.c., december 21."

meanwhile an important public body had taken up the question. "the metropolitan public garden, boulevard, and playground association" had, through its officers, lord brabazon, mr. ernest hart, mr. j. tennant, and the rev. sidney vatcher, addressed the following letter to the prime minister:—

"sir,—the undersigned 'members of the metropolitan public garden, boulevard, and playground association' desire to draw your attention to an article enclosed which recently appeared in a london daily paper, and to request that you will bring the needs of lambeth district, as regards open spaces, to the notice of the future primate, in the hope that his grace may take into consideration the suggestions contained in the article, and with the co-operation of the ecclesiastical commissioners and the metropolitan board of works, take such steps as may seem to him most advisable for the purpose of securing in perpetuity to the poor and crowded population of lambeth the use and enjoyment of the open space around lambeth palace.—we have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient and humble servants,

"brabazon, chairman."

mr. gladstone willingly gave attention to the subject, and sent the following reply:—

"10, downing street, whitehall,

"december 21, 1882.

"my lord,—i am directed by mr. gladstone to acknowledge the receipt of the letter which was signed by your lordship and other members of the metropolitan public garden, etc., association in favour of securing for the use of the population of the neighbourhood the grounds at present attached to lambeth palace. i have to inform your lordship that mr. gladstone has already been in communication with the vestry of lambeth on this subject, and as it appears to be one of metropolitan improvement it is not a matter in which mr. gladstone can take the initiative. he will, however, make known your views to the prelate designated to succeed to the archbishopric, and should the metropolitan board of works intervene mr. gladstone will be happy to consider the matter further.—i am, my lord, your obedient servant,

"horace seymour.

"the lord brabazon."

next colonel sir j. m'garel hogg, m.p., chairman of the metropolitan board of works, had the matter before him. it was stated that the use of the nine acres of ground (of which a plan was presented) depended upon the permission of the archbishop. the lambeth vestry had sent a memorial to the queen and the government saying that the pasture and recreation acres might be severed from the archbishop's residence.

the following is the reply received from mr. gladstone:—

"10, downing street, whitehall,

december 1882,

"sir,—mr. gladstone has had the honour to receive the communication which you have made to him on behalf of the vestry of the parish of lambeth on the subject of acquiring the grounds of lambeth palace as a place of public recreation. in reply i am directed to say that as far as he is able to understand this important matter it seems to be a case of metropolitan improvement, and if, as he supposes, that is the case, the proper course for the vestry to take would be to bring the case before the metropolitan board of works for their consideration. in this view mr. gladstone is not aware that her majesty's government could undertake to interfere, but he will make known this correspondence to the person who may be designated to succeed the archbishop of canterbury, and he will further consider the matter should the metropolitan board intervene. mr. gladstone would have been glad if the vestry had supplied him with the particulars of the case, in regard to which he has only a very general knowledge.—i am, sir, your obedient servant,

"e. w. hamilton.

"the vestry clerk of lambeth."

mr. hill gave notice of the following motion:—

"that an instruction be given to the prime minister that if the proper authorities are willing to hand over the lambeth palace grounds for the free use of the public, this board will accept the charge and preserve the grounds as a portion of the open spaces."

then came a hopeless and defensive letter, before referred to, addressed both to the standard, telegraph, and the times:—

"sir,—some of the statements (including a correspondence with the prime minister) which have, during the last few days, appeared in the newspapers with reference to lambeth palace grounds, would, i think, lead those who are unacquainted with the circumstances to suppose that these grounds have been hitherto altogether closed to the public, and reserved for the sole use of the archbishop and his household. will you, therefore, to prevent misapprehension, kindly allow me to state the facts of the case?

"for many years past the archbishop of canterbury endeavoured, in what seemed to him the best way, to make the grounds in question available, under certain restrictions, to the general public. during the summer months twenty-eight cricket clubs, some from the lambeth parishes and some from other parts of london, have received permission to play cricket in the field, and similar arrangements have been made for football in the winter, though necessarily upon a smaller scale. the whole available ground has been carefully allotted for the different hours of each day. on certain fixed occasions the field is used for rifle corps' drill and exercises, and throughout the summer, arrangements are constantly made for 'treats' for infant and other schools unable to go out of london. tickets giving admission to the field at all hours have been issued for some years past, in very large numbers, to the sick, aged, and poor of the surrounding streets; and the whole grounds, including the private garden, have been opened without restriction to the nurses and others of st. thomas's hospital.

"his grace frequently consulted those best qualified from local experience to judge what is for the advantage of the neighbourhood, and invariably found their opinion to coincide with his own—namely, that a more public opening of the ground would interfere with the useful purposes to which it is at present turned for the benefit of the neighbourhood, and that, considering the limited space, no gain could be secured by throwing it entirely open which would at all compensate for the inevitable loss of the advantages at present enjoyed.—i am, sir, your obedient servant,

"randall t. davidson.

"lambeth palace, december 16."

on january 6, 1883, i wrote to the daily news, saying:—

"sir,—your columns have recorded the steps taken by the lambeth vestry and by lord brabazon (on the part of the open space society, for which he acts) with respect to the use of the pasture acres connected with the palace grounds of lambeth. i have been asked by a clergyman, for whose judgment i have great respect, to write some letter which shall make it plain to the public that it is not the gardens of the palace for the use of which any one has asked, but for the nine acres of fields outside the gardens, as a small recreation ground which shall be open to the children of lambeth, who are numerous there, and much in need of some pleasant change of that scarce and pleasant kind. no one has dined at the lambeth palace, or been otherwise a visitor there, without valuing the gardens which surround it and which are necessary to an episcopal residence in london. no one wishes to interfere with or curtail the garden grounds. i thought the public understood this. i shall therefore be obliged if you can insert this explanation in your columns. much better than anything i could say upon the subject are the words which occur in the family churchman of december 27th, which gives the portraits of the new archbishop, dr. benson, and the late bishop of llandaff. the editor says that 'every one knows the archbishops of canterbury have a splendid country seat at addington, within easy driving distance of london. within the same distance there are few parks so beautiful as addington palace, whilst, unlike some parks in other parts of the country, it is jealously closed against the public. the palace park is remarkable for its romantic dells, filled with noble trees and an undergrowth of rhododendrons. there are, moreover, within the park, heights which command fine views of the surrounding country. it is thought, perhaps not unjustly, that the new archbishop might well be content with this country place, and, whilst retaining the gardens at lambeth palace, might with graceful content see conceded to the poor, whose houses throng the neighbourhood, the nine acres of pasture land.' this is very distinct and even generous testimony on the part of the family churchman to the seemliness and legitimacy of the plea put forward on the part of the little people of lambeth.—very faithfully yours,

"george jacob holyoake.

"22, essex street w.c."

news of the palace grounds agitation reached as far as mentone, and mr. r. french blake, who was residing at the hotel splendide, sent an interesting letter to the times—historical, defensive, and suggestive. he wrote on january 3, 1883, saying:—

"sir,—attention having recently been drawn to the lambeth palace grounds and the use which the late primate made of them for the recreation of the masses, it may be interesting, especially at this juncture, to place on record what were his views with regard to those historic parts of the buildings of the palace itself which are not actually used as the residence of the archbishops. these chiefly consist of what is known as the lollards' tower, and the noble gate tower, called after its founder, archbishop moreton. the former of these has recently been put into repair, and rooms in it were granted to the late bishop of lichfield and his brother, by virtue of their connection with the palace library."

mr. blake then adverts to the affair of the grounds. he says:—

"nor can i suppose that any well-informed member of the vestry could imagine that it is in the lawful power of a prime minister, or even of parliament, to alienate, without consent, any portion of the church's inheritance. it may be a somewhat high standard of right, which is referred to in the sacred writings, to 'pay for the things which we never took,' but in no standard of right whatsoever can the motto find place to 'take the things for which we never pay.' although the archbishop may have deemed that he turned to the very best account the ground in question, for the purposes of enjoyment and health to the surrounding population, he was far too wise and too charitable to disregard, so far as he deemed he had the power, any petition or request which might, if granted, add to the pleasure and happiness of others, and if it had been made clear to him as his duty, and an offer to that effect had been made to him by the metropolitan board of works or others, i am satisfied he would have consented, not to the alienation of church property, but to the sale of the field for a people's park, and the application of the value of the ground to mission purposes for south london, and such a scheme i happen to know was at one time discussed by some of those most intimately connected with him."

afterwards, january 13, 1883, the pall mall gazette remarked that "it is not a happy omen that the consent of the ecclesiastical commissioners is required before the well-fed donkey who disports himself in the palace grounds can be joined by the ill-fed, ragged urchins who now have no playground but the streets." the daily news rendered further aid in a leader. then a report was made that the condition of the streets, "to which, in his correspondence with the archbishop of canterbury, mr. holyoake had called attention, had been illustrated by the fall of several miserable tenements, in which a woman and several children were fatally buried in the ruins." the writer says there is "no hope that the unkindly exclusiveness of 'cantuar' will be broken down."

so the matter rested for nearly twenty years before the happy news came that the london county council had come into possession of the ecclesiastical fields, and converted them into a holy park, where pale-faced mothers and sickly children may stroll or disport themselves at will evermore. all honour to the later agents of this merciful change. there is an open gleam of nature now in the doleful district. sir hudibras exclaims:

"what perils do environ

him who meddles with cold iron."

not less so if the meddlement be with ecclesiastical iron and the contest lasts a longer time.