Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

1921 - 1921 - 1922

---

General Frederick Heath-Caldwell CB aged 62/63.
Constance M.H. Heath-Caldwell aged 52/543
Cuthbert Eden Heath OBE aged 61/62
Sarah Heath aged 61/62
Admiral Sir Herbert Heath KCB, MVO, etc aged 59/60
General Sir Gerard M. Heath KCMG, 57/58
Lt Cmdr Cuthert H. Heath-Caldwell DSO aged 31/32

Violet Heath-Caldwell and daughters.

Leopold C. Heath (Griggs) aged 26/27
Genesta Farquhar (ne Heath) – aged 21/22
Madeline Marion de Salis (ne Heath) aged 27/28
Rosamond Heath (Posy) aged 26/25

Heath - Leopold v Vicar

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 April 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

I think it is about 70 years since the Holmwood Church was opened and during that time the services have been conducted in the simplest forms, which makes me reject the move that you should now have hoisted the ritualistic flag, disturbing the minds of at least some of your congregation.

I think I must be about the oldest worshipper in the Church. I do not mean in any way but in the in the date of my first attendance, and I will be glad if you will answer the following questions.

1st. Whether you have had any general requests from the Church-going portion your parishioners to make the change.

2nd. What is the supposed Symbolical meaning of the lighted candles which appeared yesterday (the (finest, first?) day in the year) upon the Communion Table.

3rd. Whether lighted candles on the Communion Table during the Communion Service placed there merely for ritualistic or ceremonial purpose are legal.

Truly yours.

L.G.Heath


--------------------------------------------------------------------

sent 30.(03. 04?) 1901

Lady Laura - black border of mourning?

- - -of Rome, of which she was mercifully purged and set free at the Reformation. I am bound, however, I think, in fairness to us both, though it is only with the greatest reluctance that I mention such a matter, as state that any public repetition of the misconception under which you have most unfortunately fallen as to the character of my opinion and teaching, would oblige me to take further advice upon the matter.

I may add that if you are not satisfied with my interpretation I am quite ready to have the matter submitted to the Archdeacon or to the Bishop.

Yours very faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


24 April 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

In answer to my enquiry as to the symbolical meaning of lights on the Communion Table you say that it is, "as given by ancient writers, the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ the Light of the World in the two natures."

I presume that when you placed the lighted candles on the Table you did so in agreement with the views of those ancient writers as to their symbolic meaning and I shall be glad to know whether I rightly interpret "two natures" as "bodily and spiritual nature."

Truly yours,

L.G.Heath

(note from Gill- called same afternoon by Anstie and had long talk.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

29 April 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

I would be obliged by your letting me see the Lincoln judgment.

Truly yours,

L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2 May 1901

From - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Draft.

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

In reply to yours received this evening, I am very sorry that you attach a superstitious meaning to the use of lighted candleson the retable in Church. I do not do so, nor have I heard that any other of my parishioners attach to them the meaning you allege, by the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I have tried very hard to explain to you that my conduct of the services cannot warrant the teaching what you have attributed to me and must decline further controversy which as you refuse to accept my explanation must be fruitless. I can only again say that I am quite willing that the matter should be submitted to the Bishop (though sorry that he should be troubled upon so simple a matter).

I would remind you that it is not my private opinions that I commissioned to teach, but the doctrines of our Lord Jesus Christ as defined by the Church of England "distinguished from all Papal Puritan innovations."

Your sincerely and faithfully,

R.J.S.Gill


--------------------------------------------------------------------
8 May 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I have adopted your suggestion and referred our difference to the Bishop to whom I have also sent a copy of our correspondence. I did not think it would be respectful to the Bishop to let you see my letter before he had seen it himself but I have sent him a duplicate to send to you when the time comes.

Truly yours,

L.G.Heath

----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 May 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir Leopold,

Many thanks for your kind letter telling me you have written to the Bishop.

I quite appreciate your kind consideration in sending a duplicate of your letter to his Lordship for me, when he shall have received your, which of course, ought to reach him first.

I am sincerely sorry that any difference should have arisen between us.

Yours sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill


--------------------------------------------------------------------

20 May 1901

From - Randall Winton, Bishop of Winchester, Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Private

My dear Gill,

You are aware that I have had a letter from Sir Leopold Heath. You will see that he asks me to send you a copy of it, which he kindly forwarded to me for the purpose. He sends also the enclosed duplicate copy of the correspondence which has passed between you and himself with reference to the altar candles. I enclose a copy of the letter I today written to him. Please return it to me.

If, as I feel sure is the case, you would be willing in such a matter to rest upon Archbishop Benson's Lincoln Judgment - a document which I am happy to notice the Admiral praises in the strongest terms, would it not be best that you should write me a letter saying that it is to that document that you defer both as regards the usage in question and as regards its interpretation and that the Admiral's apprehensions are really misapprehensions, inasmuch as he has taken up mistakenly a sentence of yours which was written, perhaps hurriedly, and failed to make clear the distinction between two things:
(1). The doctrine of the two natures of Our Blessed Lord, symbolised, according to some early Fathers, by the lights.
(2). The doctrine of the presence of God in the Holy Communion, a doctrine independent of the profound mystery of the two natures of Our Blessed Lord.

Of course the good Admiral is venturing without adequate training, upon a theological question which cannot be readily expressed in popular terms. I shall be anxious to smooth away his fears if it can possibly be done, for it goes to my heart to think that a good old man of 84 should in his last days be upset and troubled by matters of this kind, and I am certain you will yourself feel that every tender consideration is due to him, and that we cannot act in such a case as we should perhaps act if the remonstrant were a gentleman of say 50 years of age.

If you see your therefore to write me a letter of a gentle and kindly sort which I could send on to the Admiral, I should be very grateful, and of course you can add any separate letter of a strictly confidential character, telling me anything else you may desire to say.

I rejoice that you were able to write to him in the friendly and courteous manner that you did. If you would like to see me on the subject I shall be very glad, but probably a letter would be at least as satisfactory.

I am, yours very truly,
Randall Winton

--------------------------------------------------------------------

24 May 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Bishop Randal Winton C/o H.Le Blanc Lightfoot Esq. 1 Keble Road, Oxford

Private

My dear Lord Bishop,

I received your most kind letter just before leaving Holmwood, whither I return on Saturday. I am much distressed about poor old Sir Leopold Heath who is really quite upset about the matter of the Lights, and has personally been most kind to me since I went to Holmwood, and it is a matter of great satisfaction to me that your Lordship considers my letters to "friendly and courteous" which I was most anxious they should be.

I enclose a comment on Sir Leopold's letter to your Lordship marking the reference according to
pages and paragraphs, as I understand we possess exact duplicates and think it right to name certain inaccuracies though perhaps they are not very important.

I should like to mention that in reply to Sir Leopold's second letter of which he has not apparently sent a copy to your Lordship (nor has he I presume sent copies of his two letters = = = to the Churchwardens which were somewhat dictatorial to say the least) I called upon him, and during a long conversation, first ascertained that he considered that my words as to the symbolical meaning of the "Lights" = = = implied the doctrine of "Transubstantiation."

He refused to accept any elucidation and seemed to hopelessly confuse the ideas of the Human Nature of Church with that of the Material presence in the elements and to ignore the teaching = = = - of the creed that by the (Incarnation?) our Lord "God and Man is not two but one Christ."

I think your Lordship is aware that on one occasion some years ago Sir Leopold took a very peculiar and violent line about the ('erection' crossed out) of = = = an East Window and considerably upset the majority of the parishioners.

I have taken the opportunity of speaking to three prominent male parishioners of evangelical views, who were the only leading ones who I have reason to believe might in any way object to the use of the lights and all have = = = ? page missing?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
26 May 1901 (or 24?)

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I have sent a second letter to the Bishop in duplicate hoping that "in the spirit of fair play he would send the duplicate to you"

I presume he sent the first on.

Yours Faithfully

L.G.Heath

-------------------------------------------------------------------

25 May 1901 ?

From - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold,

I was very sorry not to be able to reply to you by bearer, but was just going across to the Church to take a funeral service when it was put into my hands.

I am sorry that you troubled to write on the matter was not really important, but am much obliged to you for taking the trouble, and for your strictly fair treatment of the matter.

The letter I refer to bears the date 24 April and on looking it up I find that it is a very short one, and chiefly important as having led to our conversation on the same day, when I first ascertained that you had put a very different construction upon my words from what I intended by them, or think myself that they are capable of having. I am writing now somewhat against time and was unable to get this down to the post for Mr.Portman to take up, as I have had interruptions all the morning.

Yours sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill.

I enclose the letter 24.4.01

over.

I enclose the letter 24.4.01 but if I may so advise should not trouble his Lordship.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
29 May 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I am quite (unconscious?) of having omitted "my second letter to you" from the correspondence which I sent to the Bishop.

The dates of my letters as forwarded are April 22nd, and May 2nd. and I have no manuscript copies of any other. Please let me have the missing letter by bearer and I will send a copy to the Bishop and return it to you.

As to my letter to the Churchwardens I must refer you to my letter to the Bishop in which is the phrase "the correspondence between Mr.Gill and myself, copies of which I enclose," and it would have been out of place to enclose a letter not addressed to you.

In my anxiety for fair play, I gave permission to the Churchwardens to "shew my letter to you or anyone else" but they could and doubtless would have shewn it to you without that permission, and the permission which I gave does not being the letters within the category of "correspondence between Mr.Gill and myself."

Of course you could obtain the permission of the Churchwardens to forward it to the Bishop if you write to

Truly yours,
L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------

29 May 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I return your note of April 24th. I quite agree with you that it would be foolish to send it to the Bishop as there has never been a written answer to it. I think it probable that at the end of our conversation on that day it must have been suggested that although it had been dispatched to you in the morning no answer need be sent and that I must have thereupon torn up my copy and have considered the letter as if it had never been sent. But this is mere conjecture.

Truly yours,

L.G.Heath

If the letter were sent to the Bishop it would merely shew that I had asked a certain question and that would throw no additional light upon the question before him.

L.G.H.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

20 June 1901

From - Bishop Randall Winter's secretary, Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Mr.Gill,

The Bishop of Winchester sent to Sir Leopold Heath on Tuesday (17 June 1901) a letter of which I herewith enclose a copy to you by the Bishop's direction. Perhaps you will kindly return it.

Yours very truly,
Arthur(?) Sheppard.
Private Secretary

-------------------------------------------------------------------

24 June 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Sir,

I should be glad to know your authority for telling me in your letter of April 23 that "the Churches --- are your constitutional advisers in all such point" (such "- - - revolutionising the Communion Service) "as representative as of the People." I find nothing of the sort in the accompanying volume of an encyclopedia which although somewhat antiquated was in its early days considered a great authority. I will send for the volume this evening.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

------------------------------------------------------------------

24 June 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

reply to above on same paper

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold,

I hope you will not misunderstand me when I say that I consider it a little hard to be brought to book (the is the recent occasion) for the exact reference of a sentence written in a friendly spirit to a parishioner whom I look upon as a friend and supporter.

At the same time I endeavour always to be in a position to support any such statements. My intention the sentence you quote from my letter of 23rd April was that as representatives of the laity I looked to the Church wardens in all matters needing consideration. I do not know what authority (Bishop?) quoted in the Encyclopedia possessed, but his article seems to state nothing contrary to the opinion of Sir Walter Phillimore in The Book of Church Law by Blunt revised by him; and I believe no better exponent of Church Law.

I read herewith the Book referred to and put in a mark at pg.255.

Yours sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
26 June 1901

Sir Leopold's Circular



-------------------------------------------------------------------

29 June 1901

From - Lady Laura Hampton, Oakdale, The Holmwood, Dorking, Surrey - Parcesls, Holmwood Station L.B.& S.C.R.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey



My dear Mr.Gill,

I read from my Dorking paper which I have just received, really I think Sir Leopold has outdone himself and that is saying a good deal. Please let me have the paper back. Please also not to forget your promise that if you think it right or expedient to refer to the matter in the pulpit you will let me know so that I may be an absentee, for I am sure you will quite understand that considering all the circumstances it would be more than I could bear to be present, though of course I wish you to do whatever you consider right without any thought of my feelings in the matter, except to help me to be absent!

I am more than sorry for the trouble you are having.

With kindest regards, yours very truly,

Laura Hampton

------------------------------------------------------------------
29 June 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood

Copy

Private

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

I have, this evening, read with the deepest regret your letter published in "The Dorking Advertizer" and can only hope that you do not in the least realise the serious character of this, which must tend to stir up strife in your division by emphasizing minor points of difference, whereas we should all surely try rather to realize our agreement in all the main and essential points of the Christian Faith.

I propose publicly in Church tomorrow to invite ('the' crossed out) all to form (in mercy?) the called for meeting by a notice of which I enclose a proposed draft.

I merely mark our letter "private" to let you know that no one has seen a copy of it, but you are at liberty to show it to any one you like to.

Yours very faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday 29 June 1901
Advertiser and Country Post.

Our Post Bag.

The Spread of Ritualism

Sir,
The South Holmwood Church was consecrated somewhere about the year 1832, and from that date until quite recently the worship at the Communion Table has been according to the simple Protestant ritual - in spirit and in truth without external symbolical decorations of any sort.

But at Easter time this year (the) Communion Table was, without the slightest warning or consultation with the parishioners, found to be decked out with what half the Churchmen in England object to as being Papal symbols, emblematic of Papal doctrines.

The parish has not as yet been canvassed, but it is believed that a large number of the parishioners object strongly, not only to the emblems themselves, but also to being ticketed, without their consent as a ritualistic community.

I have hesitated about issuing this letter to my fellow parishioners, but I think the future welfare of our country largely depends upon the issue of the contest now going on between those who are called Ritualists and those who hold to Protestant doctrines, and that it is every man's duty to take a part in a contest such as that which the new Vicar has boldly challenged in this parish, when it comes so directly before him.

I shall be glad to receive communications from those who think with me, in order that I may judge of the expediency of calling a public meeting on the subject, and I invoke that expression of opinion from all parishioners, whether Churchmen or not, as the interests of the school children are at stake - Yours, etc.

L.G.Heath. (Admiral)

Holmwood, June 26, 1901

------------------------------------------------------------------
3 July 1901?

From - Sir Lepold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Sir,

On May 2nd you wrote in reply to mine of the same date that you hoped I would abstain from further controversy, but the second part of my letter was an earnest appeal (most people would call it a pathetic and touching appeal) to you to follow the cause of "charity and good sense" enjoined upon you in such cases as our's by the late Archbishop Benson. That part of my letter was contemptuously (I hope you will not think that word too strong) passed over by you as if it had never been written.

I hardly know why after that absurd but decided breaking off of our correspondence you should have again addressed me at 10 o'clock last Sunday, you can hardly have expected me to come to the Church to have myself wrongly but pointedly accused, but I must point out that it was hardly fair to attack me at a time and in a place where and when I was unable to defend myself.

But I suppose you wish for an answer to your letter and I will write one as calmly and temperately as I can. Your letter complains that I emphasize "minor points of difference." You have used a similar expression before and your Bishop has written to me of the lighted candles as "really a trivial matter."

I have if those candles are not as you express it "mere points of the Christian Faith," I may fairly and I hope without offence ask you whether you are justified by the rules of Christian Charity in ignoring the dictum of the late Arch-Bishop. He does not speak doubtfully but he says you ought to give way.

And now as to your calling upon your congregation to pray for "unity." I hope it is perfectly understood by you that if you will take away the candles, keeping if you wish it the cross and vases and flowers there will be unity so far as my influence goes; and I will with all respect to you as my vicar seriously ask you whether it is right to invoke the special aid of the Almighty to obtain an object which it is absolutely in your own power to obtain.

I cannot write lightly on such a subject but I hope I have not written a word than can offend you in any way.

Faithfully yours,
L.G.Heath.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

5 July 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Lord Bishop Randall Winton

Copy.

My dear Lord Bishop,

I am exceedingly sorry to have to trouble your Lordship further in respect of the unfortunate controversy raised by Sir Leopold Heat re. "Lights" but think you may wish to be informed as to his further action and (concerning?) your kind letter.

Sir Leopold has written to Lady Laura Hampton, the donor of the retable and ornaments (given in memory of her late husband) asking her to appeal to me; also a letter to Mr.J.(Busby?) our National Schoolmaster objecting to his position as Churchwarden on the absurd ground that his house being included in his salary and rates paid by the managers, he is not qualified as a landholder.

Last Saturday evening my attention was called to a letter in the 'Dorking Advertiser' of which I enclose (a reprint?) received by post by Lady Laura Hampton and presumably being so distributed to parishioners.

My only reply was a letter delivered to Sir Leopold Heath the first thing on Sunday morning informing him that I should give out at the services in Church the notice of which I enclosed, and herewith enclose, copy.

He has written me another letter much in the style of former ones.

I have an additional reason for writing to your Lordship, in that Sir Leopold Heath dragged the Churchwardens into the controversy by writing them letters of which he did not send copies with the rest of the correspondence to your Lordship.

Consequently your Lordship's replies were to myself and marked "Private," so that the Churchwardens have no decision or opinion of your Lordships which they can quote of and when applied to, and feel themselves somewhat in a false position in consequence.

Regretting the necessity of further troubling your Lordship,
I remain, yours very faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6 July 1901

From - Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I am sorry I have failed to make myself understood. I had not the least idea of suggesting that your "asking the congregation to join in the prayer for unity was an attack upon me." It was your public reference to my signed letter as tending to "stir up strife and to divide the people of the parish" when all the world knows that it is you who have done this by introducing ritualistic symbols which I call an attach against me.

Then as to Mr.Bixby, I did not in the least intend to discuss whether he was entitled to rule at vestry meetings although I think you must be mistaken in describing him as a "rate payer," but I expressed a doubt as to whether he had the qualification which the Law requires in a Churchwarden. These are two very different things.

Your (writing?) (motion?) is not explicit as the whether you are sending my correspondence to the Bishop or not but if you send my part of it I ask that you will send the whole and especially their letter which puts gifts to the church of carpets, cushions, &c., on the same footing as the gift of a cross to which obeisance is made and candles which have in your eyes a mysterious and unusual meaning.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

---------------------------------------------------------------------
8 July 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold Heath,

I enclosed no copies of any correspondence to the Bishop in my last letter, only one of the (reprints?) from the 'Surrey Mirror.'

Yours faithfully,

R.J.S.Gill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
10 July 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Ans.12.07.01 - see letter book.

My dear Mr.Gill,

I am told that you are still praying for peace and I want to suggest that we might take a practical step towards bringing it nearer to our doors.

The state of the case seems to be as follows.

You want peace with candles.

I and those who think with me want peace without candles.

The case in South Africa is precisely similar.

The Boards want peace with independence. England wants peace without independence. There is no common ground for peace negotiations in South Africa but between us there ought to be and I think there is.

There are but 3 ways of approaching the question.

1st. A bargain between you and myself as representing those distressed by your actions.

2nd. A trial in court as to whether lighted candles which are legal under the ordinary meaning given to them are also legal under the unusual meaning which you attach to them.

3rd. A census of the Parishioners with a previous agreement between us that you will follow in the matter the wishes of the majority as shewn by the proposed census.

As to No.1 I have already offered to you that if you will remove the candles, I will make no objection to the Cross. You have never answered me and I suppose you don't think its worth considering, but I really wish you would take it into your consideration. The Cross is perfectly harmless to those who do not bow to it (I am not complaining of those who do, it is a matter for the individual conscience) but the candles having a real meaning attached to them as to conditions under which the Communion Service is carried on affect all the communicants and they have no choice but to communicate accepting those conditions or not to communicate at all. Your revision of the meaning of the candles has driven me away from your Communion Table. One other Communicant has also been driven away, like poor Bishop Cox, by a general idea that the candles indicate popery.

As to No.2 I am not going to comment.

As to No.3 I think this this would be a thoroughly practical ending of the controversy honourable to both sides and (vaning?) your dignity which I gather from your letter to the Bishop is at present an obstacle to your removing the candles.

I take this opportunity of saying that I am acting in this matter in two capacities.

1st. On my own personal belief(?) As to which although I feel it hard to be driven from the Church in which I have worshipped when in England for 70 years yet if it were only my personal case and the Parishioners were generally on your side it would, I should think, be my plain duty simply to leave the Church for another.

The second capacity in which I appear is as the Patriarch of the Community being possibly the oldest man and almost certainly the oldest worshipper in the S.H. church amongst them, and as such and from my Social position generally and especially as being the only Magistrate amongst them I feel it my duty to act as a sort of head and rallying point for those who think with me but who would be from the humble position of many of them at a great disadvantage had they no leader to fight for a continuance of their 70 years old traditions.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------
13 July 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

There is a paragraph in your letter referring to me as to which there must be some mistake.

"I should be very sorry to think that social position should be considered a bar to hinder any parishioners from (consulting?) his or her Vicar on any question concerning Church matters or the welfare of there own - (suite?) but as the idea has been (wanted, mooted?) by others as well as yourself." &c &c.

I am perfectly innocent of having said or written a word to that effect.

Please explain.

Truly yours,

L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------

no date

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

Not sent

My dear Sir Leopold,
I shall be most obliged if you will (learn?) to address correspondence on the matter of the retable and ornaments in the Parish Church tome, as I have after full consideration and consultation with the Bishop made a compromise in the matter sanctioned by Mr. (Siddings?) ('the Bishop' crossed out) and the matter is at an end as far as I am concerned

With regard to your (motives?) I have said to yourself, but you are entirely mistaken supposing that I attribute the wish to injure me with the Bishop or parishioners to you.

All I believe I said was that I have told you more than once that your action was so calculated to weaken my influence with my parishioners. The Bishop has known me from his first coming to the diocese and I am not the least afraid of your poisoning his mind so cannot have a attributed(?)

(pencil note) - why Sir L.G.Heath par - - illegible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
15 July 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

Draft - Written on Sir Leopold's letter of 13.

My dear Sir Leopold,

I am sorry if I misunderstood your words "those who think with me but who would be from the humble position of many of those at a great disadvantage &c"

Yours sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

I don't expect my Parishioners to adopt an attitude of hostility but to have sufficient confidence in me to talk matters over quietly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
15 July 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

Although you forbid my writing to you yet there is one paragraph in your letter which makes me think it my duty to disobey you in the hopes that you will develop the idea which you have started.

This is "I am sure these must be for ground of agreement than occasion for difference between us as I hope and believe we are both anxious for the true welfare and peace of the people."

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

(note in pencil over top by Gill)

In reply called and had interview 14.07.01 when was given copy of manifesto and told that no one now believed the (Athanarar Trend?) that he did not care a (jot?) about historical continuity (the the?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

23 July 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Parishioners, Holmwood, Surrey

To the Parishioners of the South Holmwood Ecclesiastical District.

Since sending you my circular of June 26th, the Vicar has put up a public prayer for peace and unity in the Parish, and I have therefore made to him certain proposals for a compromise, which he has, however, rejected. But in his letter there are passages which lead me to suppose that he would possibly listen to a petition for the return to the old system of worship at the Communion Service, if it were signed by a majority of the Parishioners, and I propose shortly to send round an appropriate petition.

I have received a certain number of letters in reply to my circular, most of them very earnest, but a long way short of the number which would justify me in asserting (what I still believe to be true) that the large majority of the Parishioners are antagonistic to the new system.

Before sending round the proposed petition, I think it right to explain the exact position of the light question - first, throughout the country in general, and secondly, in this Parish in particular.

As to the country in general

In 1890, the Lord Bishop of Lincoln was tried in the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury for supposed illegalities in the conduct of the Communion Service. Amongst them was the placing of two lights on the Communion table during the Communion Service, the same not wanted for lighting purposes.

The late Archbishop Benson delivered the judgment of the Court, and it was founded upon so exhaustive a consideration of all available evidence, that it has been accepted as a righteous judgment by all parties, and it now stands as the law. The judgment was not founded upon any theological arguments, but solely on the question of whether such lights in such circumstances had ever been sanctioned by the law, and if so, whether this sanction had ever subsequently been withdrawn. The following are the words of the judgment:-
"The Court does not find sufficient warrant for declaring that the law is broken by the mere fact of two lighted candles, when not wanted for the purpose of giving light, standing on the Holy Table continuously through the Service; nothing having been performed or done, which comes under the definition of a ceremony, by the presence of two still lights alight before it begins and until after it ends."

The lights, whatever may be their meaning, are therefore lawful. In the remarks preliminary to the actual judgment many interesting and important statements are made. It would seem that "no symbolic sense or meaning had at any time attached to these candles except that 'Christ is the Light of the World,'" and therefore, as it seems, "It would be contrary to the history and interpretation of the lights to connect them with erroneous and strange teaching as to the nature of the Sacrament." Indeed, in the days of Elizabeth, when as in our own times there was violent opposition to the use of lights, the objection was not at all to their meaning, but to a general idea that they savoured of Romish superstition.

The Archbishop makes some wise and Christian remarks which should, I think, be the foundation of our petition to the Vicar. He reminds his readers of St.Paul's statement in similar circumstances, that "Things which may necessarily be ruled to be lawful do not for that reason become expedient."

And again, "It is not likely that the lights will cease to be distasteful to many minds, and where that is the case, even in a small degree, charity and good sense ought not to be violated."

I have already recorded the Archbishop's emphatic declaration repeated in three paragraphs, that "no symbolic sense or meaning had at any time been attached to these candles, except that 'Christ is the Light of the World,'" and I venture to suggest that this declaration has not been disputed and that this meaning, and this meaning only, is attached to the candles in 999 of every 1,000 ritualistic churches in England. So much for English Churches in general.

As to South Holmwood - This Church, I believe stands alone, and is absolutely isolated from all other Churches in this matter.

Our Vicar entirely ignores the Archbishop's emphatic denial that the candles had at any time meant more than the innocent and indeed beautiful statement that "Our Lord is the Light of the World," but he has adopted a meaning given by ancient writers whom he does not name, but who were probably Roman Catholics, viz: That they mean "The presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Light of the World in the two natures."

Our Lord is, we know, always present spiritually wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, but the Vicar affirms by his candles (which he states for their teaching power through symbolism) that at the Communion Service and at the Communion Service only, He is present also in His human nature. Personally, I say it with great regret, I can only translate "The presence of the two natures" especially as this presence is supposed to occur only at the Communion Table, in the Roman Catholic sense of the real presence.

The Vicar strenuously and vehemently denies not only that he means anything of the sort, but also that the words "present in the two natures" will bear that interpretation, and the Bishop of Winchester is of the same opinion, but much as I might wish to be convinced, I cannot but remember that this is not a question of theology but of the meaning of the English language of which laymen may be presumed to know as much as clergymen. Moreover, it is not a question of the Vicar's personal belief which, I doubt not is as he says, free from any notion of the real presence at the Communion Table, but of the teaching of his candles, for he tells me "he values externals for their symbolic teaching."

I think it is right, notwithstanding the extreme length of this communication, to add to it by explaining my personal position in this contest.

1st. I think it very hard that I am, at my age, driven from a Church to the building of which my father largely contributed and in which I have worshipped when not at sea, for seventy years, but I feel I am only one out of two hundred, and it is a question for the majority.

2nd. I am in a sense the patriarch of the community. If I am not actually the oldest man, I think I am certainly the oldest worshipper in the Church. I am the only magistrate amongst you, and I have a firm belief that the great majority of you regret the changes which have been made in our hitherto simple forms of worship. But, if what has been done is to be resisted, someone must take the lead and I consciencely believe that it is my duty to do so.

I hope each one of you will make up his or her mind as to his or her duty in this case and sign the petition I shall send round, or not, according as your conscience leads you.

Be one thing or the other, but do not be apathetic or listless.

L.G.Heath

N.B. - The italics are mine. L.G.H.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

24 July 1901

From - Mary Helsham-Jones, Redlands, The Holmwood, Surrey. Telegrams, Holmwood Railway Station, Sth Holmwood

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, The Holmwood, Surrey.

Dear Sir Leopold,
I had hoped to keep out of this whole lamentable controversy, but now that you have thought it your duty to send forth another address to the Parishioners of South Holmwood, exhorting them not to be "apathetic and listless" I feel I must speak.

I, like you, am old, far more than 25 years I suffered as silently as I could from the Services in this Church which you seem to have enjoyed but which Rohds and I felt to be careless, and in the administration of the Holy Communion actually objectionable we (submitted?) because we felt our duty was to respect our Vicar.

Can you tell me what are the "changes made in the forms of worship since Mr.Gould left, surely the services are simple as before Mr.Gill came, and neither you and I have a right to refuse credence to his assurances that he holds the same opinion as that of our Bishop, by whose judgment are not you and I bound to abide.

To open up a discussion no the "doctrine of the Real Presence" would be on my part a most impertinent and mischievous one, but I must not shrink from saying that the words of our Church service in the Holy Communion distinctly affirm a (pat?) close Union with our Lord in that service than in what precedes it. Surely dear Sir Leopold in old age our one plain duty is to seek for Peace (not to cause up discord' crossed out)

I implore you to consider if it will make you happier when the close of your life come to (limit?) you have been the cause of disputations and dissentions which are even now dividing the Parish, as to have such a (amin?) predilections for the sake of supporting and aiding (self?) appointed (thunder?)

Your affectionately (?)

Mary S. Helsham-Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------

24 -

From - Mary Helsham-Jones, Redlands, The Holmwood, Surrey. Telegrams, Holmwood Railway Station, Sth Holmwood L.B.& S.C.R.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Mr.Gill

After awaited address? From Sir Leopold to the Parish, begging them not to be "listless and inactive" I felt I must speak. This is the rough copy of what I wrote. Please do not publish mine! I have no time to do more so the mistakes in this remain. In haste.

Yours sincerely,
Mary L.Helsham-Jones

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6 September 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold G. Heath, Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Reverend Sir,

I beg most respectfully to submit to you a petition from 432 of your parishioners and I trust you will consider it to be a direct and most emphatic answer to the prayer for unity, which you have put up in public and recommend for private use.

In that prayer, offered up with special reference to the division of opinion in this parish on the subject of the ritualistic ornaments which you have introduced, you have prayed the Almighty to take away "whatever may hinder us from Godly Union and Concord" and I most respectfully suggest that by putting it into the hearts of a very large majority of your parishioners to sign this petition He has shewn you the road which, if followed, will restore the Union and Concord which we all wish for.

Faithfully yours.

L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6 September 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood

copy

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

I only returned home last evening and have this morning copy of a petition under cover from you.

I wish to give the matter my most serious attention and consideration so that you will not, I believe, expect more than a simple acknowledgement of the receipt of this petition now.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

--------------------------------------------------------------------

6 September 1901

Note by Gill.

Petition

Asks what?

Majority? - re. Sir L.G.Heath's letter and (analysis?) in mine to the Bishop.

Takes no cognizance of opposite side.

Largely comprised of names of non-church-goers and even dissenters among whom prominent share of the dissenting (minister?) and his housekeeper. Also lodgers and non-residents.

Should in a matter of the celebration of Holy Communion be confined to names of those who attend

-------------------------------------------------------------------


17 September 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Lord Bishop Randall Winton

My dear Lord Bishop,

I much regret the necessity of again troubling your Lordship on this matter, but shall be very grateful if you can give me your counsel and advice as to the best course to adopt.

Sir Leopold Heath, who in the first instance accused my publicly, by word and in writing, of teaching Roman doctrine because of our use of lighted candles at the celebration of the Holy Communion has not been satisfied with the result of his submission of the matter to your Lordship, but subsequently sent a letter to the local newspapers, and on my return from my holiday sent me the letter and petition of which I enclose copies, and my reply.

The population of the 1400, I have carefully analysed the signatures as far as is possible without addresses (none being given) and find that there are some 145 householders among the signatories.

42 names only can be identified as those communicants; there are 44 non-conformists among whom are the chapel (munder?) and his housekeeper have signed.

Exclusive of the above 134 are names of those who rarely or never attend church, (a few of them go to North Holmwood).

To show the manner in which the memorial has been got up I may add that one name appears twice of a man who has left the parish, three or four of those who were home for a holiday or merely visitors; 4 do not belong to the parish at all. There are several names of mere lads and one of a young man of weak intellect, and two are those of persons living in open immorality, a certain number, 120 names in all, I am unable to locate.

The request of the petition is vague, as the form of service used is the same as always (been had?) ordered by the Prayer Book, a permanent (method?) of temporary retable (with lighted candles added) being the only difference moreover in externals. (Twelve(?) coloured stoles are also new but nothing been said about them).

There are many who (are?) satisfied with the manner in which the services are at present conducted, and though I have not solicited any expression of opinion from those who I believe to be likely to approve of the slight change in our ritual, several have signified their approval.

I know, however, from --- conversation that there are some among the most respected of my parishioners who do feel a certain 'outrageousness' to the use of 'lights' and prefer the celebration of Holy Communion without lights to which by long (habit - crossed out) use they are accustomed.

It has occurred to me that the wishes of these might be met by omitting the lighting of candles at both 8.am. and 11.am. more (say the first) Sunday in each month, and so asking those who wish for lights to give way to such extent to the prejudices of those who object to their use, but I fear there are some who would not be satisfied with this concession.

If your Lordship could allow me an interview I should be very glad of the opportunity of talking the matter over.

I remain, Your very faithfully and sincerely,
R.J.S.Gill

------------------------------------------------------------------

20 September 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold G. Heath, Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

Can you tell me approximately how soon I may expect an answer to the petition which I forwarded to you.

I quite understand that it is a matter which should not be unreasonably hurried but on the other hand it should not be unreasonably delayed.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

------------------------------------------------------------------
21 September 1901 (?) (maybe 24?)

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I hope that on reconsideration you will agree with me that it is (unconceivable?) to ask me to copy out for you upwards of 430 names with their addresses for the sake of enabling you to tease (trace?) some very small proportion of them. It is the more so because I suppose at least 400 of them being your parishioners must have been actually visited by you in their own houses.

As I said before I will (if you will send me their names) enquire about those particular cases as to which you have doubts.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath


-------------------------------------------------------------

21 September 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Randall Winton, Bishop,

Copy

My dear Lord Bishop

I am very much obliged by your kind answer to my letter of - - inst. and for copies of Sir Leopold Heath's enquiring re Faculty and your reply. I know that he was trying that line as he had already written to Gould.

I shall be glad to avail myself of your kind offer of an interview at your convenience, and meanwhile enclose copies of my two letters to Sir Leopold (and the?) receiving the petition and of his letter to which the second is a reply.

Yours very faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

encl. 2 sheets copies
Letter Sir L.G.Heath
Letter Lord Bishop of (Winchester?)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

23 September 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill

Be so good as to give me the names of those who have signed the petition although they are "not residents in the parish." My list was obtained from the assistant overseer of Dorking Rural.

Please tell me at the same time whether you obtained a faculty for putting up your ornaments.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

(answer 23.09.1901)

------------------------------------------------------------------
No date

Pencil handwriting of Rev.Gill

Randall Thomas, by Divine Permission &c. to all and singular clerks and literate persons &c. and throughout that part of our Diocese of Winchester which is within the County of Surrey,
Greetings, wherever a Petition shall been filed in the Registry of the Court of the Worshipful &c. our Commissary &c. on the words following - to wit - "Forth Commissary Court of Surrey, to the Worshipful Vicar General &c. The Humble Petition of Admiral Sir Leopold Heath &c. showeth as follows.
1. The Church of St.Mary Magd. in the Parish Church of the Ecclesiastical Parish of Holmwood &c. of which v petition as a Parishioner.
2. The said Church was built by public subscription &c. and v Petitioners father was a large subscriber (& so on) the Petitioner except for the periods and has worshipped at the said Church continuously over its consecration ie for about seventy years
3. The present Vicar of the said parish Rev. &c. was instituted in or about the month of August 1900 - to at or about half of the year 1901 illegally without a faculty and without any notice to the General body of the Parishioners placed immediately above the Holy Table - - with its lower edge as close to as apparently to touch the Holy Table, (2) A metal Cross raised some 14" or 16" above the retable by means of a stem rising from a


(very difficult to read) - copy of one of Sir Leopold's petitions.

- - - form of worship at the Communion Table to which they had so long been accustomed was presented(?) to the said Vicar signed by 432 (subsequently increased to 458) Parishioners being the occupants over 18 years of age of 164 tenements in the Parish, of the remaining tenements in the Parish the occupants of 7 declined to sign the said Petition and 22 Tenements were not visited. No answer to the said Petition has been received and the said Ornaments have not been removed. Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that you will decree a faculty As issue for the removal of the said Ornaments for the said Church. Dated this A Sunday, the eighth day of December 1901.

And whereas also said Commissionary hath(?) decreed all persons having any interest in the premises so - - -

-----------------------------------------------------------------

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I hope I am once more misunderstanding you for I do not like reading your postscript which seems to me to insinuate dishonesty in Furnell without the slightest proof of it and I do not think that fair.

I am much surprised that you should not know Daisy Furnell as she is one of your Sunday school teachers and has helped to makeup the accounts.

The Bookers lived until a fortnight ago in Mr.Hack's farm house not 200 yards from the Vicarage. Then Buckland, the brother of the flyman lives in what I think are called Church cottages opposite the Church and not much more than 100 yards from it. But I will not go further. If you do not know these your immediate neighbours there will no doubt be many on the list that you will not recognise. Furnell tells me and I think you should know it that speaking generally the 435 were most eager to sign and that those who declined were mostly simply indifferent like the Lasdiccans or like Gellio and that he does not think there are a dozen or so he visited who think with you, and I am informed that the Miss Chaldicotts, Dr Robertsons, and Miss Gardener have written to you direct objecting to your practices.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

-----------------------------------------------------------------

25 September 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold,

I am sorry that you have again misunderstood me. I had no intention of asking you to copy out 430 names and addresses and my request for the latter I though might have been easily satified by letting me see the original petition which it was not unreasonable to suppose contained the addresses of the signatories.

As, however, this is apparently not the case, I can save you all trouble by asking asking Funnell myself to tell me where eg. A.Booker (the name appears twice), Kenneth M. Ball, Mr. and Mrs. James Peckham, Darcy Funnell, S.Laveyby, F.Homan, M.G.Warnock and some twenty others are lving or who Mr.Buckland may be? Though I have visited nearly every house in the parish I do not propose to know the Christian names of all my parishioners and there are many families respectively of Wartfolds Skeltons, (Ticheress?) Frobishers &c.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

This needs no reply, but may help you to realise how eager your employee has been in obtaining signatures.


---------------------------------------------------------------

25 September 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

You ended your last letter with "I can write no more upon the point" but you have done so and I must answer you.

I cannot conceive your object in endeavouring to prove that in recording up to 430 names an insignificant number of mistakes have been made.

Suppose (which I do not anticipate) that you find 32 errors there would still remain 400 signatures to a very simple but distinct and urgent prayer to you to return to the old order of things.

That such a large majority of your parishioners should have signed this document on the mere presentation of the petition at their door would along be very remarkable and shew a very strong and real feeling, because people do not like doing anything in opposition to their clergymen but the value of this particular petition is vastly enhanced by the circumstances with which you surrounded it.

They are as follows.

On Saturday June 29th my letter calling upon the parishioners to communicate with me if they objected to your innovation in the local newspaper.

On the next day, without taking time for thought, you read out during the Clerical Service a statement that that letter which was signed by me tended to disturb the peace of the parish and you called upon your congregation to meet it by using the prayer for unity both publicly and privately. You then placed this proclamation in the Church porch and even tried to use the prayer for unity for several Sundays.

The petition was not sent around until long after you had taken these steps and the result shews distinctly that you were in perfect ignorance of the feelings of your parishioners when you supposed that all was peaceable until the appearance of my letter.

Your cry was Peace. Peace when there was no peace and it was your invocation which disturbed the peace of the parish and not my remonstrance against them.

You have called upon the Almighty both publicly and privately for his special intervention in the matter and I hope you will accept the answer He has so plainly given you.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------
25 October 1901

From - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood

My dear Sir Leopold,

I hope you will excuse Alum.paper I have been away two days at the Diocesan Conference and am very busy. I talked the matter of lights over with the Bishop and propose as a concurrence to the - - - of those who feel averse to their use to omit the lighting of the candles on the first and fourth Sundays in each month after a letter stating this has appeared in the November number of the Parish magazine.

I am very sorry that you should feel that I have dealt unfairly with you which is very far from my wish and intention and about (?) you may know that I wish to treat you with every possible consideration I am sending herewith copies of an alternative paragraph in my letter (rips on bottom of page) magazine and am prepared to insert - - to the more satisfactory

------------------------------------------------------------------
26 September 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold,

I have yours of this morning in answer to mine of yesterday.

As you do not offer to let me see the original petition I can only presume that it does not contain the addresses.

The three names you refer to I quoted with others as I did not think you could be aware that such had been put down as adult inhabitants. Danny Furnell has been away in Service for many weeks and was home for a brief holiday; A.Booker (the name appears twice) - Andrew Booker had managed to leave the parish before I went for my holiday during the first week in August, and had gone before the petition was sent to me; the only other A.Booker I know of in the neighbourhood is not a resident in the parish.

Buckland who lives in Church houses brother of the flyman is A. not W.Buckland, the name occurs I believe, elsewhere, the only one I know of with the latter initial is a boy of 13 years of age, but of course I may be wrong as I have no addresses given; and can only guess from the fact that his name comes neat after those which I presume belong to his grandmother and aunt with whom he lives.

I am sorry that you should be offended but wrote thinking that you could hardly be aware of the (to say the least) careless way in which names had been got together.

I quite recognise the fact that some of the names are those of worthy and genuine objection but it would have been far better if they had not been associated with some who can hardly be claimed under either head.

Yours very faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill



-----------------------------------------------------------------

31 October 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

I am sorry you are again writing what you know I disagree with in a place where I cannot answer.

It is of no use repeating what I have written in my last 2 or 3 letters, but lest you should claim that my silence means acquiescience I will say I think what you are writing gives an inaccurate and misleading view of the real fact.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath


------------------------------------------------------------------

4 November 1901

From - Ellen Chaldecott ?

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Vicar,

We both thank you very readily for your kind letter, we earnestly hope the concession you have made will lead to unity in the parish, at any rate, you have done your part and I have no doubt at some cost to yourself. We had not thought of your writing to us on the subject and were much touched by it.

Thanks for enquiring about Algy, he has I hope made a good start at school in every way and our visit to Crowthorne as well as his exeat have been a great delight to him.
Yours very sincerely,
Ellen Chaldecott

By the bye, I have been intending to see you to tell you that Mrs.Hack have arranged a jumble sale at Mr.Habashon's (Iron?) room for the 13th I could not let you know in time to put it in the Magazine. The proceeds are for (Ch Eng Lyenana?) and Melanessian missions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

5 November 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Reverend Sir,

I forward herewith an attested copy of 26 further signatures to the petition already submitted to you, bringing the total up to 453.

The assistant (overseers?) inform me that there are 270 tenements in this district being 9 less than formerly reported on account of a mistake at to the North Holmwood boundary.

12 of these tenements are vacant leaving therefore 258, of which 236 have been canvassed. The balance of 22 is made up of tenements inhabited by Jews, by Roman Catholics, by those who are known to have written to you privately, by those connected with the Church, and by a few inexplicable inhabitants believed to favour your view, and those dependent upon them whom I was not thought decent to approach on the matter.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
9 November 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I am surprised that you should consider your letter of Oct.25th to be an answer to the petition of 432 of your parishioners for the restoration of "the simple form of worship at the Communion Table to which they had so long been accustomed" and the more so now that I have your letter to your parishioners published with the most last number of the magazine.

In that letter you state that what you are doing is "in response to me quietly in the subject" then pointedly and contemptuously ignoring the 432 signers of the public petition.

I am obliged to suppose that when you solemnly in the middle of the Church service denounced me to the congregation as the disturber of the peace in the parish you had something more in mind view than merely to humiliate me and that your prayers were offered up to me fide and it astonishes me more than I like to express it that you should quietly ignore the manifest answer to your prayer.

As to the last prayer of your letter to the parishioners I can only say that I greatly wonder and regret that you should give so misleading and explanation.

Faithfully yours,
L.G.Heath


-------------------------------------------------------------------

14 November 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I wish to submit to a vestry meeting the question of whether a faculty should be applied for to compel you to remove the retable &c. which you have illegally placed over the Communion Table.

Please tell me how I am to obtain the meeting. I presume it would be called by the Churchwardens upon requisition but how many signatures to the requisition would be required and on what day and at what hour and what place would best suit your convenience.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath


------------------------------------------------------------------

15 November 1901

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood

(written on same letter as Leopold's of the 14th.)

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

I am not able to inform you as to the powers of ratepayers and think that the Chancellor of the Diocese, the Worhshipful H.C.Gore-Browne M.A., Kinpple Street, Winchester. will be the right man for you to consult as to the law.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,
R.J.S.Gill

The place of meeting would be the Vestry, the day and hour would I imagine, be fixed by myself and the Churchwardens.

------------------------------------------------------------------

20 November 1901. r-to-s

No names.

Private

I return you the Chancellor's note herewith. Newspaper controversies are always if possible to be avoided. But why our friend should be (imposed?) over to stir up strife in the parish in his old age is difficult charitably to conceive.

Prejudice and self will are certainly not confined to anyone under a degree of human beings!

The Notice for calling a Vestry is the same in one case as in another and must follow legal precedent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
25 November 1901

From - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Copy

My dear Sir Leopold,

I return Gould's letter as requested, and am sorry that you should again have so seriously mistaken me. In speaking of the detrimental influence of your action in regard to my parishioners, I referred not to your motive or intention, but to the result of your action.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

I regret to say that the candles were lighted by mistake for the 8.am. celebration of Holy Communion yesterday which was the fourth Sunday in the month, and thus one of those upon which I stated they should not be lighted; the mistake was through Pierce, the sexton being away for the day; I shall be obliged if you will kindly (explain?) this to Mrs.Gerard Heath.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
27 November 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

You do not deny the general accuracy of my description of the conversation which passed between us the other day in the Vestry. They can have but one meaning.

I thank you for your invitation to take the chair at your missionary meeting but I must decline, 1st because 8 o'clock in mid-winter is rather late for one in his 85th year and 2nd because although I served 3 years on the China station it was 56 years ago and I know nothing of what is now going on there.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

-----------------------------------------------------------------

7 December 1901

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,
I am making out a petition as to which I told you and it will be a pity that there should be any difference as to facts between us. I shall therefore be very much obliged by your telling me whether the descriptions on the other side are correct.

Truly yours,
L.G.Heath

(other side of page)

(1). The Church of St.Mary Magdelene is the Parish Church of the Ecclesiastical Parish of South Holmwood.
(2). The following ornaments (?) viz. (1) a (retable?) consisting of a slab of wood with a round shelf, the slab being fixed to the reredos immediately above the holy table and with the lower edge touching the holy table (2) a metal cross raised some 14 or 16 inches above the (retable?) by means of a stem rising from a small pedestal and two candlesticks with tall candles and two flower vases.

L.G.H.

(other side of page - by Gill)

The Holmwood Vicarage, Dorking

7 December 1901
Dear Sir Leopold,
In reply to yours of today, I must ask you to (excuse me - cross out) hold yourself entirely responsible for your description of the (retable?) and ornaments (which - crossed out) as I have given you very facility for examining them.

I must refuse to be a party in any way to a petition and accusation from which I wholly dissent.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,
R.J.S.Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition

To the Reverend The Vicar of South Holmwood Church.

We, being adult inhabitants of the S.Holmwood Ecclesiastical District, beg most respectfully to represent to you the sorrow with which we have observed what may best be described as the hoisting of the ritualistic flag on the Communion Table of our Church; and in imploring you to restore to us the simple form of worship at the Communion Table, to which we have for so long been accustomed, we venture to remind you of the precept of the late Archbishop Benson when delivering judgment upon the question of lighted candles on the communion table.
"It was not likely that they (the candles) will cease to be distasteful to many minds; and where that is the case even in a small degree charity and good OUGHT not to be violated"

W.Carpenter
Mrs.H.Carpenter
Mrs.Saunders
G.Harding
A.Redgood
L.Redgood
W.Dawer
A.Taylor
J.Francis
J.Trettan
E.Garman
E.Broadwater
C.Broadwater
F.Jackson
L.Howard

R.Long
I.Trellett
A.Trellett
O.Benson
M.Upfold
R.Hill
L.Macaulay
S.Dawes Anstie Grange, Holmwood

I certify that these names are correctly copied from the original signatures.
L.G.Heath J.P. for Surrey

Already submitted. 432.
Now added. 26
Total 456


-----------------------------------------------------------------
1902
===================================================================

1 January 1902

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,
I send for your perusal my Solicitor's letter about calling a Vestry meeting to approve or condemn the petition which I have presented to the (Church? Chancellor?)

May I submit to him your name and that of the Churchwarden as those who will sign the notice, and if so will Saturday the 10th inst. at 6.30 pm. suit your convenience.

Truly yours,
L.G.Heath

--------------------------------------------------------------------


4 January 1902

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey.

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,
Please let me have our answer to my note about a vestry meeting and let me have with it the letter from Mr.Hill which I sent you "for perusal."

Yours faithfully,
L.G.Heath

------------------------------------------------------------------

4 January 1902


From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

copy

Dear Sir Leopold Heath

I have had a very busy week and was occupied almost the whole of yesterday with the Sunday School (Treat?) allotting prizes &c. or should have answered your letter of 1st inst. at once.

I can see no good purpose to be served by called a Vestry to discuss matters in which action has been taken already after consultation with the Bishop, nor do I know of any precedent for calling a vestry for such a purpose.

I believe the remedy for aggrieved parishioners in the matter of ritual lies elsewhere. For myself therefore, I must decline to sign notice until I see sufficient reason for so doing.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

---------------------------------------------------------------
4 January 1902

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey.

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

My dear Mr.Gill,

I think I must have made a mistake, I wrote under the impression that the Court had already submitted the petition which I have deposited with them to you, but I gather from your note that it is not so, and that you are supposing that the matter is in the same question as when you published your "concopicus" in (I think) the Nov. magazine.

It seems absurd to ask Mr.Allaway or Mr.Moore to call a vestry meeting for the proper proposal and I suppose if you stand by your refusal the Court will in some way interfere causing more delay and expense.

Before communicating with Mr.Hill I should be glad to know how the matter stands, and I shall understand it if you tell me that you have not or yet heard anything officially as to a petition having been presented.

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

I understand it will be posted in the Church porch and that you will in some way be told to acknowledge it. Do not trouble to write a long letter, a few words will suffice.

L.G.H.

---------------------------------------------------------------
No date. Draft on same letter as 4 Jan. above from Leopold

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

Your letter of 02 night(?) was the first and is the only intimation that I have received or any petition having been presented with the exception of a statement to that effect in a printed circular, which was not sent home, but which I found had been circulated on Christmas week in the Parish.

I would be quite useless for you to communicate with Mr.Alloway or Mr.Moore, as they have no status in request of a vestry meeting in an ecclesiastical parish (or I believe in any rural parish since the Parochial Councils Act was passed.)

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill

---------------------------------------------------------------

10 January 1902

From - Randall Winton (Bishop), Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev. R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey.

My dear Gill,

Would it be of much practical gain at present to the peace of Holmwood Parish if I were able to pay a visit to the Parish in an official way? When I "visited" the rest of the Deanery in 1900, Holmwood was left out, as it was then vacant, so it would be quite natural that I should visit it now. The only day I can see as a possible one is Friday, Feb.14th, and this may prove unworkable on other grounds or unsuitable for you. I have an invitation from Colonel Helsham-Jones to go there if I visit the Parish. Perhaps you think that it would be of no great gain at present and might be more profitable a little later. But I should like to know about this. I would gladly see the Admiral if that were of any use, and if it could be done simply and naturally. How do things stand a present about the application for a Faculty?

I am, Yours very truly,
Randall Winton


------------------------------------------------------------------
12 January 1902

(looks like notes for letter to Bishop)

Theme of letter to Bishop (?)

Knew Col. and we proposed be (review?) and are glad to have prospect of your coming - - - - could you see them.

Possible ? as meet some of leading parishioners and let them say anything they might like to wiht ref. to - - -

- - - -Sir Leopold Heath has sent question for faculty to remain for Retable and ornaments for the (event?) but unoffical notice of same same receipt for their violent circular and - - --
"Know of nothing to interfere with Meeing of devout = = =

-----------------------------------------------------------------
14 January 1902

From - Randall Winton, Farnham Castle, Surrey (Bishop Randall- -

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Gill,

I am writing to Colonel Helsham-Jones to offer to sleep there on the night of Thursday, Feb. 13th, and I would see anything and everyting in the Parish that you like to show me on the 14th. I could not stay late on the 14th, but if you can arrange that I have a gathering in any way of your parishioners or their leaders I shall be most glad to meet them.

As to Sir Leopold's request for a Faculty when you receive the Chancellor's citation, which presumably will be issued, for a discussion of the matter, how would it be for you to summon a Vestry Meeting to ask for a Confirmatory Faculty for the re-Table, if it was erected without one? I do not think the movable cross and candlesticks can want a Faculty by any stretch of usage, whatever may be the abstract law. But the re-Table probably ought to have had a Faculty if it is a structure in any sense. If your people are with you perhaps they would at once pass a resolution asking for such a Conformatory Faculty, and that question could be considered by the Chancellor along with the other. But perhaps you feel that a Vestry Meeting in the present state of the parochial atmosphere would do more harm than good.

I am, Yours very truly,
Randall Winton.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

17 January 1902

From - W.P.Moore, Surrey Registry, 23 Knightsbridge Street, Doctors Commons. London, E.C.
Moore & Currey, Proctors & Solicitors.
Faculty Office, Surrey Registry, Archdeacon of London Registry.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir,

Sir Leopold Heath has presented a Petition to the Chancellor of the Diocese for a Faculty to remove certain Articles which have been placed in the Church of South Holmwood.

The Chancellor has directed a Citation to issue calling upon the Vicar and Churchwardens or any Parishioners that may think proper to make objection to such a Faculty being granted to do so.

This Citation will be affixed to the Church Door on Sunday next and if you or the Churchwardens wish to make objection you must please let me know as soon as possible and I will send you the necessary paper to sign and will then inform you what further steps must be taken.

You will see from the Citation the Articles that Sir L.Heath wishes to have removed.

Yours faithfully,
W.P.Moore.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
21 January 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Winchester (Randall Winton)

Copy

My dear Lord Bishop,

I am very glad to hear that you can come here 13th (proa?) and after consultation with one or two leading parishioners am of opinion that an address in Church in the evening of 13th would be the best way of arranging for you to meet the parishioners; the next morning most of the men in the parish would be at their work.

I propose therefore, if it will suit your Lordship to give notice of a service at 6.30pm. on the Thursday, February 13th at which an address will be given by your Lordship; and should like to give notice at the same time ie, previously as well as at the service that any parishioners wishing to have an interview with your lordship might attend at the Vestry after service.

Colonel Helsham-Jones kindly proposes to make 8pm. his dinner hour so as to fold in with this arrangement. I am very grateful for your lordship's allusion to the petition of Sir Leopold Heath for a faculty to remove from the church the memorial put up by the Lady Laura Hampton to her late husband; I hardly think it desirable to call a Vestry meeting in the present state of irritation caused by Sir Leopold Heath's violent and unscrupulous agitation, he has sent in all three circular letters to parishioners but I propose in co-operation with Colonel Helsham-Jones, Mr.Wilson and other parishioners to show cause why the faculty should not arise.

I am very much distressed by all this agitation and naturally hindered in my work.

Yours very faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill

I enclose copies of letter which passed between Sir Leopold Heath and the Churchwardens as Sir Leopold did not include them with copies of correspondence put to your Lordship last time and I think it important that you should have opportunity of seeing all before your visit.

------------------------------------------------------------------

21 January 1902

From Bargman & Son, Decorators etc. 63 South Street, Dorking. Telephone Dorkig No.0181

To - Sir Leopold Heath

Sir Leopold,
We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th and of the one of the 17th forwarded to us by the Rev.(Inge?)

In reference to your suggestion of raising the Well 4 ft we would say, that, as the water rises much above the level of which itis now standing, it might be a good thing to do, but we think possibly the water is as high now as it ever gets, and that is but very little below the level of the Cellar floor and must saturate the surrounding ground.

Might we suggest as an alternative, that, should the inflow of water into the well admit of it being lowered and kept lowered for a sufficient time to permit of the (steining?) being cemented down to say a depth of 5 or 6ft from the top and then an overflow being inserted at such a level as would permit of it being carried into the drain, which we suggested should be put into the area, and then both the area surface water, and the overflow of the well might join with the drain which already exists in the cellar. This should render the ground round the top of the well much drier.

Of course it will be necessary to find out that the cellar drain has a satisfactory exit.

With regard to the 2nd section of the report, may we suggest that it might be well to wain(?) it for the present, and that when we are working at the house examine the wall under the floors and let the condition they may be in decide as to the advisableness of carrying out this 2nd part.

There are one or two old Established creepers it would certainly be a pity to destroy. We think if this work were done they ought to be saved.

We are sending an approximate estimate for the 1st part of report and we are sorry that we cannot be more definite. Should any of the drains we come in contact with be found to be in a bad state it may be necessary to follow them up, but we are now only estimating for making them good where we propose to open up the ground.

The work will, we think, take between 3 and 4 weeks.

Waiting for further instructions.

We are, Sir Leopold, your obedient servants.

Bargman and Son.

note added

You must use your own judgment in the matter. I think work of the proposed to cement the inside of the upper part of the well.
L.G.Heath. Jan 22.


------------------------------------------------------------------

22 January 1902

From - Moore, Surrey Registry, Doctors Commons, London

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir,

I send herewith the necessary papers for you to sign in presence of a witness in order to take objection to the grant of a Faculty as prayed by Sir Leopold Heath.

Please return this to me when signed. You must please prepare and send to me a statement signed by you setting forth your answer to the Petition (billed?) by Sir L.Heath. You must go categorically into all the (arguments?) made by Sir L.Heath and you can add what you think proper.

You can, if you like, put the matter into the hands of a Proctor or Solicitor. A day will be appointed for the Hearing and you can then appear either personally or by Solicitor or by Counsel. If you employ Counsel you must instruct a Proctor or Solicitor.

The evidence will be taken viva voce and you must be prepared with witnesses to prove your case. The hearing will probably be at Holmwood or at Dorking or Guildford, but this will be determined by the Chancellor hereafter.

In this case there was no occasion for a resolution of Vestry as a citation was directed to issue. The only object of the resolution of Vestry is to ascertain the wishes of the parish as regards any proposed alterations in a case where no Citation issues.

Yours faithfully,
W.M.Moore

mem (in pencil by Gill?)

From Winchester Dio Kalender 1902

Instructions for obtaining Faculties for Alterations in and restorations of Churches and Churchyards.

1. Application must be made to the Registrar for a form of Petition. The Petition signed by the Vicar and Churchwardens must show (severally?) the works proposed to be carried out and - - - copy of the Vestry order, if any, showing the approval of the Parish, or other evidence of such approval.

The Petition must then be returned to the Registrar, who will send it with the papers to the Chancellor. Should the Chancellor, after consulting with the Bishop, approve of the Petition, a Citation will be published &c.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

23 January 1902

From - Collyer-Bristow, Hill, Curtis & Dods, 4 Bedford Row, London, W.C.

To - The Rev.Robert John Seppings Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Sir,

re St.Mary Magdalene, South Holmwood.

re The Petition of Admiral Sir Leopold G. Heath.

We are instructed on behalf of Admiral Sir Leopold George Heath to appear for him in the Consistory Court in support of his petition for a faculty.

We understand that the Citation in the matter was affixed to the door of the church on Sunday last, the 19th inst.

We are sir,
Your obedient servants.
Collyer-Bristow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

26 January 1902

Copy

In the Commissary Court of Surrey

Heath v the Vicar and Churchwardens and Parishioners and Inhabitants of the Parish of South Holmwood in the County of Surrey.

We hereby give notice that we appear to the Citation dated the eighteenth day of January instant and issued in this matter and pray to be heard in objection to the Faculty being granted as prayed in the Petition referred to in the said Citation.

Dated the 26th day of January 1902.

The Rev.R.J.S.Gill - Vicar
J. Bixby - Churchwardens
William Rapley

(issuer?) W.J.Pierce.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
January 1902

In the Commissary Court of Surrey.

Heath v Gill and Others.

Costs of Opponents

Admiral Sir Leopold George Heath (Petitioner) v The Vicar and Churchwardens of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood (Opponents)

In the matter of an application for the grant of a Faculty authorizing the removal of certain ornaments from the Parish Church of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood.

Costs of Opponents.

Instructions to oppose 1.1.4
Perusing Petition 6.8
Perusing correspondence 13.4
Writing the Registrars for form of Proxy 3.6
On Receipt of same writing you therewith for signature 3.6
Writing the Registrar therewith duly signed 3.6
Instructions for Act on Petition 6.8
Drawing same (folio 14) 14.0
Fee to Mr.Kempe to settle same 3.5.6
Attending him. 6.8
Fee to him and clerk to advise 1.3.6
Mr.Kempe having desired a Conference with you attending to appoint Conference 3.4
Writing you thereon 3.6
Fee to Mr.Kempe for Conference 1.6.0
Attending conference with you 13.4
Engrossing Act on Petition in duplicate (folio 21) 9.4
Writing the Registrar therewith 3.6
Perusing Answer to Act on Petition 6.8

Carried forward £5.15.6 5.18.6

March 1902

Writing Mr.Moore in reply to his letter that we proposed to arrange
with Messrs Collyer Bristow a date for the hearing 3.6
Writing you there and that Admiral Heath wished the hearing to stand
over for the present 3.6
8 March
Writing Messrs Collyer Bristow acknowledging receipt of their letter
and request for a Vestry meeting and that we would write to you on
the subject. 3.6
Writing you thereon and that we thought you must hold the Vestry
meeting and suggested consulting Mr.Kempe 3.6
Attending Mr.Kempe when he advised you doing so 6.8
13 March
Writing Messrs Collyer Bristow asking them to let us have the
original Memorial for the Vicar 3.6
14 March
Writing you that the Chancellor had fixed the 21st inst for the
hearing 3.6
15 March
Writing you with the requisition for the Vestry meeting which Mr.
Kempe advised should be held without fail 3.6
Perusing Notices to Produce 6.8
The like, Notice to Admit 6.8
Attending inspecting documents 13.4
Attending signing admission of documents 6.8
Perusing Notice to Admit facts 6.8
Paid for copy correspondence (folio 26) 8.8
17 March
Writing the Registrar in reply that we assumed that the date for
the hearing would stand 3.6
Instructions for Brief 5.5.0
Drawing same and fair copy 10.0

Carried forward £6.3.8. 15.8.2

Copy Petition for Counsel (folios 6) 2.-
The like Acton Petition (folios 14) 4.8
The like Answer folios 15 1.8
The like Notice to Admit (folio 12) 3.0
The like Notice to Admit facts (folios 5) 1.8
The like Notice to produce (folios 8) 3.4
Attending Mr.Kempe therewith 13.4
Fee to him therewith & Clerk 22.0.0
Consultation fee to him & Clerk 1.6.0
Attending to appoint Consultation 6.8
Attending Consultation 13.4
21 March
Attending Court engaged all day when case was adjourned to
following day 3.3.0
Refresher fee to Mr.Kempe & Clerk 16.10.0
Attending him 6.8
22 March
Attending Court engaged all day when the case was concluded
and Judgment reserved 3.3.0
Travelling expenses two days 18.6
9 April
Writing you that the Chancellor had fixed the 16th inst. for
giving Judgment 3.6
Brief to Mr.Kempe to hear Judgment & Clerk 6.8
Attending him 6.8
Paid his fee & Clerk 3.5.6
16 April
Attending Court when the Chancellor directed the Faculty to
issue to the Petitioner but made no order as to costs 13.4
Writing Mr.Barnell bespeaking transcript of shorthand note
of Judgment 3.6
Paid for same 2.12.6
Writing the Registrar enquiry if any Court fees were payable
by the respondents. 3.6
Writing him with cheque 3.6
Paid Postage &c. 18.5.5 5.0

£71.1.7 £26.16.2
£97.17.9

------------------------------------------------------------------

28 January 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - W.P.Moore Esq., (Survey?) Registry.

Copy

Dear Sir,
I am obliged by your letters of 17th and 22nd inst. and herewith enclose notice of appearance to the Citation issued 18th inst. regards by myself and the Church wardens of the Parish of Holmwood, and shall be glad to know that you have duly received the same and that it is in order.

Yours faithfully,
R.J.S. Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------

25 (or 28) January 1902

From - Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,
I am told that you have on two occasions, one of which was yesterday afternoon, told Mr.Funnell that during his canvassing one of my servants or labourers refused to sign the petition but was coerced into doing so by my threatening to dismiss him or her from my service.

I will be obliged by your telling if the story is true and if so what is the name of the servant or labourer.

Faithfully yours.

L.G.Heath

-------------------------------------------------------------------
28 January 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Day and Sons, 28 Great George Street, London

Copy

Dear Sirs,

A (citation?) has been issued by the Chancellor of the Diocese calling upon the Vicar, Churchwardens, Parishioners, &c., of the Parish to show cause why a Faculty should not issue on the petition of Sir L.G.Heath K.C.B. to remove a retable and ornaments put up in the parish Church of St.Mary Magdalene, The Holmwood, last Easter, the gift of the Lady Laura Hampton in memory of her late husband.

You acted for me when Vicar of Aldershot n the matter of Clerk's (Church's?) land. I have with the Church-wardens request the usual notice (as supplied by the Registrar) that we appear to the Citation.

I shall be glad to know whether you can act as our proctor on the Commissary Court, and whether you can give me an interview either on Saturday or Monday morning next (latter preferred) to instruct you in particulars of the case.

The Citation was placed on the door of the Church on Sunday 19th inst.

Yours truthfully,
R.J.S.Gill

------------------------------------------------------------------

29 January 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

In reply to yours of 28th inst. I do not remember having mentioned any such case as that named by your to Funnell though I may have done so, and certainly did not say that you personally had threatened any one with dismissal.

You probably refer to the case I mentioned to you in the Vestry on the day when you came to see how the retable was fixed, when I told you that someone in by name (though I do not suppose that you knew anything about it) had used such a threat to procure a signature, and naturally told you at the time that I should not mention any names, I think I stated at the time that my only purpose in mentioning the incident, was to give you an idea of the way which the signatures to the petition had been got together.

Yours faithfully and sincerely,

R.J.S.Gill


-------------------------------------------------------------------

cover of Vestry filed letters here

------------------------------------------------------------------
1 February 1902

From - Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Sir,

Your reply of Jan. 29th to mine of the 28th is most unsatisfactory.

That on the 29th you should "Not remember" having made so serous a statement on the 27th "although you may have done so" only 2 days previously is most extraordinary.

In that statement to me, whether I was personally concerned or not, the petition = = = which I have presented to the Bishop's Court is much weakened and I call upon you to give me the names of all concerned in order that I may sift the matter to the bottom.

Funnell was my servant as a canvasser for signatures to the petition to you and until you lower(?) your frequently made statements that many signatures were unfairly obtained I shall disbelieve them.

I believe that until you blackened or attempted to blacken his character by these statements going so far I am told as to threaten his prosecution for forgery he was respected and looked up to by his neighbours and your predecessor, Mr Gould, has so high an opinion of him that he proposed him as an (enxam?) of the Parish Council.

Faithfully yours.


------------------------------------------------------------------

1 February 1902

From - Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

My Lawyer seems to think that if you are objecting to my petition a vestry meeting should be called to approve or disapprove of it. What is your view?

Faithfully yours,

L.G.Heath

-------------------------------------------------------------------
4 February 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood.

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

You have appealed to the decision of the Chancellor of the diocese, and have instructed your lawyers to send me a letter saying that they act for you. I have instructed Messrs Day & Sons to act for myself and the Church wardens, and matters must now take their legal course.

As regards your other letter of 1st inst. I have nothing to add to what I wrote before.

Yours faithfully,

R.J.S.Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
undated - follows letter above in pile

Drafts

We the undersigned parishioners of the Holmwood being regular members of the congregation at the Parish Church do not wish the retable with cross, vases and candlesticks upon it put up in memory of the late John Vivian Hampton Hampton of Oakdale to be removed, and we are opposed to the application for granting a faculty for that purpose.

Draft

We the undersigned being Signatories of a Petition circulated in August and September last by Admiral Sir Leopold Heath which we signed in the belief that it was a Petition against lighted candles on the Communion Table, having heard that it is now being put forward in support of his request for the removal of retable and ornaments thereon hereby declare that we did not understand it as such and have no desire that the said retable and ornaments should be removed.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
5 February 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey


My dear Sir,
Will you and your Churchwardens very kindly sign the enclosed appointment of our firm to act as Proctors in the faculty case.

Yours very faithfully,
Day & Son.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date?

From - The Oaks, The Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev. R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood

Dear Mr.Gill,
Edith Green asked me to mention to you this evening that she was round the district this afternoon and several of these women had said how grieved they were that they had put their signatures to the paper. Mrs Pyke especially would like a few words with you this evening after the service; she told Edith she believed when she signed that it was a collection for a wedding present to you and Mrs.Gill.

Yours sincerely,
F.Hornby

------------------------------------------------------------------


7 February 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Rev. & dear Sir,
We thank you for the Proxy signed and do not think Mr.Braby need attend again this year as he continues to ask.

The correspondence is now before Council and as soon as possible it shall be returned to you.

Yours faithfully,

Day & Sons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

10 February 1902

From - Messrs Day & Son, 28 Great George Street, Westminster. S.W.

To - The Rev. R.J.S.Gill

Rev. and dear Sir,
Mr.Kempe, before whom the faculty papers have been laid, would very much like to have a conference with you tomorrow morning about 11; and if you can come up by the 9:17 train from Holmwood and call here, we can go on together to his chambers.

We have sent you a wire this morning in preparation.

We are, yours faithfully,
Day & Sons

-----------------------------------------------------------------
11 February 1902

Mem. of Interview with Mr.Kempe K.C.

Get 2 Petitions signed as Col.Helsham-Jones and Rapley informed
Sir L.G.Heath's letter states that he did not object of ornaments &c.

Positive evidence of objection to faculty for removal


------------------------------------------------------------------
27 February 1902

From - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, the Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Messrs Day and Sons,

Copy,

I wrote to Mr.Moore the ( -- - ?) asking him when the case of Heath v The Vicar mentioning(?) Parishioners and Inhabitants of The Holmwood was like to be heard and have (enclosed) reply. (must the objections be heard vive voce and the case taken straight off before the Chancellor without delay?

It is most important that it should be heard as soon as possible, as Col.Helsham Jones will be going abroad within three weeks and his is one of our most important supporters; moreover I think it desirable for the name and welfare of the Parish that the matter should be settled as soon as possible; and finished before the (Grhn?) Vestry.

Yours faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill

PTO - I shall be glad at your convenience to have the papers and correspondence returned to note whether they need supplementing with others, i.e., the printed circular sent by Sir Leopold to parishioners and my letter in the magazine are complete.

R.J.S.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

28 February 1902

From - Messrs Day & Son, 28 Great George St, Westminster. S.W.

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

Rev. and dear Sir,
We have received your letter but unfortunately Mr.Moore's letter was not enclosed as you mention.

Could you kindly say what progress you have made on the lines of the conference we had with Mr.Kempe, so that we may be ready for the hearing.

Yours very faithfully,
Day & Sons

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 March 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, the Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Messrs Day and Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster. S.W.

Copy.

Dear Sirs,

You to hand this morning.(?) Please accept my apology for oversight in omitting to enclose Mr.Moore's letter which I send herewith. The church wardens are obtaining signatures for the memorials suggested to show that parishioners are not in favour of the removal of the (retable) &c. and did not (intend?) their signatures attached to the former petition (to me?) to be (read, used?) for Sir Leopold's feared approbation(?) to the Chancellor.

Yours faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

4 March 1902

From - Messr. Day & Son, 28 Great George Street, Westminster. S.W.

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

Rev. and dear Sir,
We have received you letter enclosing that from Mr.Moore and have just received from him the enclosed answer of the Petitioner which contains nothing to which we need reply.

We think Mr.Kempe suggested that you should hold a meeting of the congregation in order to ascertain their view.

Can you kindly send us a list of Parishioners who will be ready to attend and give evidence in favour of retaining the ornaments.

Yours faithfully,

Day & Son.


------------------------------------------------------------------

5 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Son, 28 Great George Street, Westminster. S.W.

To - The Reverend R.J.S.Gill

Rev. & dear Sir,
We have a letter from Mr.Moore stating that Admiral Heath is laid up and will be unable to leave the house for several weeks.

His solicitors therefore wish the hearing to stand over for the present.

Probably this will suit Colonel Helsham Jones and we might suggest some date after he returns from abroad.

Yours faithfully,

Day & Son.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

6 March 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking.

To - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster. S.W.

Dear Sirs,

In reply to your two letters 6, and 7th and 5th inst. The answer is most weak and inconclusive, as it is entirely begging the question on the part of Sir Leopold to content that he has the support of the Parish in the present petition.

I did not understand Mr.Kempe to suggest a meeting of Parishioners or numbers of the congregation, but the Church-wardens in conjunction with myself are obtaining signatures for the memorial submitted to his approval showing that the parishioners do not wish the retable &c. to be removed.

In addition to the Church-wardens, Col.Helsham Jones of Redlands, Mr.A.F.Perkins (baladene?) Mr.R.H.Wilson (?) (Houlebrook?) would I am sure appear; about how many will be required? I suppose these should be representative of different classes as well as influential people.

The memorial when complete will give the names of many of those who are opposed to the Petition.

I think it most detrimental to the welfare of the Parish that this case should be left longer undecided and had already written to the Bishop, urging its hearing without delay.

Your faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
6 March 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

Overleaf I send you copy of a letter I have just written which will explain itself. Allow me in passing to remind you of the importance of our having the Original petition sent to me 6 Sept. 1901, re. lights to show how many supposed signatures were written down in the same hand.

Yours faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill


----------------------------------------------------------------------

7 March 1902

From - His Lordship the Bishop. Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Gill,
I have written to the Chancellor about the Holmwood case. I quite agree with you that delay is most undesirable if it can be avoided.

I am very truly yours,
Randall Winter - Bishop of Winchester


--------------------------------------------------------------------

7 March 1902

From - Collyer-Bristow, Hill, Curtis & Dods, 4 Bedford Row, London W.C.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Sir,
Re. St.Mary Magdalene.

We are in receipt of your letter of yesterday's date returning the original requisition which was left with you yesterday.

Our clerk informs us that he endeavoured to explain to you that the requisition which was left with you was not a document served upon you in your capacity as defendant in the action of Heath v Gill and others, but in your capacity as Vicar of the parish.

Moreover although the requisition was signed by Admiral Heath it contained the signature of 90 other persons rate-payers of Holmwood parish who are not parties to the proceedings.

We hold that in your capacity a Vicar of the parish you ought to have retained the requisition and not to have returned it to us, but although you have returned it, you must still be considered as having read the contents as it was part of your duty as Vicar to do so.

A further requisition calling upon you to summon a Vestry Meeting containing the signatures of 9 other rate payers of the parish has recently been received by us and we are sending this together with the original requisition to your Solicitors, Messrs Day & Sons, and are requesting them to forward same to you.

We are sending a copy of your letter to us and of our reply to Messrs Day & Sons.

Yours truly,
Collyer-Bristow.

---------------------------------------------------------


10 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Rev. and dear Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 6th inst. Messrs Collyer, Bristow & Co., have now forwarded to us two documents signed by Admiral Heath and several Parishioners asking you to call a Vestry meeting to take the opinion of the Parish on the subject of the ornaments and to approve Admiral Heath's proceedings.

Our impression is that they may be entitled to ask for a meeting and we think the best (think?) would be to consult Mr.Kempe on the subject.

We are glad to (too?) that you are getting signatures to the Memorials you mention and agree that all classes of Parishioners should be represented.

Will you kindly return the Answer which we sent you as we should like to show it to Mr.Kempe.

Yours faithfully,
Day & Sons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


11 March 1902
From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

To - Messrs Day & Sons, 20 George Street, Westminster. S.W.

Copy.

Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of yours of 10th inst. enclosing the copy of the Petition which Sir L.G.Heath sent to me on 6th September last, which I am glad to have for ref. so that I may obtain signatures of those who do not approve of their signature to that petition being used in support of the petition to the Chancellor.

You do not say whether you have yet obtained the original of the above Petition so that we may know how many of the so-called signatures are not genuine, please do not fail to do so.

R.e., the documents forwarded to you by Messrs Collyer & Bristow, please remember that I have only seen the outside of one of them.

(1) Because I considered that it was most improper for them to try to come between you and your clients.

(2) Because I do not recognise their authority or right to act for my parishioners generally, but only for Sir L.G.Heath.

If my parishioners who have not gone to law against me wish to approach me I request them to do so directly and not through any outsider intervention.

I think as the case is in the hands of Mr.Kempe should be consulted; but I think it right to express my opinion that it would be most irregular to hold a meeting with the object of supporting either party to the suit, or discussing in any way a matter which is now before the court.

Would it not savour of contempt of court? I and those who are with me wish the matter to be tried by the Chancellor without further delay, and hope you will use every means to have it brought on at once.

Col.Helsham-Jones and I have both written to the Bishop urging strongly that there should be no delay: and have heard from him in reply that he has written to the Chancellor; and "quite agrees with me about delay is most undesirable if it can be fairly avoided.

Yours faithfully,
R.J.S.Gill.

The only result of a Vestry meeting in the matter before the Court would be delay as if (which is not impossible) the agitators should attend in greater numbers than the peaceful inhabitants and out-vote them. I should demand a poll.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

13 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Rev. & dear Sir,
We have received your letter enclosing the Answer to the Petition and have seen Mr.Kempe about the requisition for a Vestry meeting and he confirms the view we expressed that it would not be at all wise to refuse the request of the Parishioners, as it would be more likely to prejudice your case with the Chancellor, than if you summoned a meeting.

Whatever my be the actual result of the meeting, it will be open to you to call as many witnesses in favour of your action, as it will be for Admiral Heath to do the same in support of his Petition.

It is undoubtedly most desirable that the whole matter should be disposed of by the Chancellor without delay, but we doubt whether he will be persuaded to fix an early date having regard to Admiral Heath's illness.

If, however, you wish it, we will at once apply to have the hearing advanced.

We are writing to Messrs.Collyer, Bristow for the original of the Petition we sent you as desired.

We are, yours faithfully,
Day & Sons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

14 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster, S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Rev. & dear Sir,
We have just heard, as no doubt you have, that the Chancellor is arranging for the hearing at Holmwood if possible this day week.

This will fall in with your wishes, but we expect there will be an application for a postponement from the other side. We shall hope to have any materials you have obtained in due course.

The holding of a Vestry will not be an easy matter to arrange now.

Yours faithfully,
Day & Sons.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

15 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Son, 28 George Street, Westminster. S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Rev. and dear Sir,
We duly received your letter and now send you three requisitions for a Vestry Meeting, which we have received from Messrs.Collyer, Bristow & Co.

Mr.Kemp thinks the Vestry Meeting should without fail be held before the hearing and, if you give notice tomorrow, it could be held on Thursday next.

We do not yet know what course Messrs.Collyer, Bristow will take with regard a postponement so that we must at present assume that the hearing will take place at Dorking on Friday next, (not Holmwood as stated in our last letter.)

Yours faithfully,
Day & Son MLD.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
16 March 1902

From - R.S. Wilson, Northbrook

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Mr.Gill,

I saw Mr.Perkins this afternoon and he told me that he hopes to attend the Vestry meeting on Thursday evening. Sir Leopold may arrange for a sufficient number of attendances to carry his point with the numbers are not likely to be large and his vote will probably carry no (script?) with the Chancellor. In any event I can't think that it would be wise for you to have a poll the result would be very doubtful which if it went against you it would carry much more weight than any decision of a small vestry meeting.

You must in no account fail to have a complete list of those who attend the meeting.

Yours &c.

R.G.Wilson

------------------------------------------------------------------

17 March 1902

To - The Opponents and to Messrs Day & Son, 28 Great George Street, S.W., their Solicitors

In the Commissary Court of Surrey

re.St.Mary Magadalene, Holmwood.

Notice to Admit Facts.

Admiral Sir Leopold George Heath, Petitioner v The Vicar and Churchwardens of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood, opponents

In the Matter of an Application for the grant of a faculty authorizing the removal of certain ornaments from the Parish Church of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood.

Take Notice that the petition in this matter requires the opponents to admit for the purposes of this matter only the several facts respectively hereunder specified and the opponents are hereby required within two days from the service of this Notice to admit the said several facts saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of such facts as evidence in this matter.

Dated 17th day of March 1902
Collyer Bristow & Co.
4 Bedford Row, London, W.C.
Petitioners Solicitors

The facts the admission of which is required are:
1. That the number of houses within the Parish of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood is 258
2. That the number of ratepayers within the said parish is 168
3. That each of the 122 persons who have recently signed requisitions to the Opponents herein calling upon them to summon a Vestry meeting for the purpose of considering the matters referred to in the Petition is a Ratepayers or person qualified to vote in Vestry Meeting of the said Parish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 March 1902

From - The Rev. R.J.S. Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Dorking
To - ?

Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your letter of 15th inst. inclosing three requests for Vestry meeting.

I in concert with the Church Wardens had already summoned a Vestry meeting for Thursday next at 6.30pm.

I hear from the (Reverend Dean Rd?) Dr.Moore the Registrar has asked for the use of the Church Room, Dorking, for the hearing of the case on Friday at 2pm., but he does not appear to have sent any notice of the hearing to the three residents here who gave notice of appearance. I shall be much obliged if you can inform me whether the reading of a written statement by Col.Helsham-Jones who has given notice of appearance will be (admissible, advisable?) before the Chancellor.

I propose to send you the memorials which, however, have not been very generally required on Wednesday,

Yours faithfully,
RJS Gill

-------------------------------------------------------------------
no date

St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood.

A meeting of the Vestry of this Parish will be held on Thursday next 20th inst. at 6.30 p.m. in the Vestry room of the Parish Church on the requisition of certain parishioners who wish to discuss the advisability of the petition for a faculty to remove the retable and ornaments erected in the Parish Church at Easter 1901 recently made to the Chancellor of the Diocese.

R.J.S.Gill - Vicar

W.Rapley - Churchwardens
J.Bixby

-------------------------------------------------------------------

19 March 1902

From - Messrs Day & Sons, 28 Great George Street, Westminster S.W.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill

Dear Mr.Gill,

Very many thanks for your kind offer which I shall be happy to accept and which I will convey to Mr.Kempe.

I think that if the gentlemen you mention are willing to be present at the hearing and to offer themselves as witnesses in your favour if the Chancellor requires it, it will have as much effect as if you asked members of the congregation to be present in as large numbers as possible.

I see no reason why Colonel Helsham-Jones should not read a written statement, as he is an opposing party.

Mess.Collyer, Bristow ask to have back the copy of the Memorial which Admiral Heath send to you and then having compared it with the original, they are ready to exchange if for the latter.

Time is now so very short that I fear you will have little opportunity of examining it, but let us hope that the Chancellor will decline to go seriously into the question of the feelings of the Parishioners, for if he does take the evidence which Admiral Heath proposes to offer, there seems very little chance of the case being concluded on Friday.

The Solicitors have given me notice to produce the following letters from Admiral Heath to yourself, namely, 22nd April, 2nd and 6th, 10th and 13th May, 15th July, 6th and 28th September, 19th and 31st October, and 9th and 12th November, which I do not find and they ask me to admit the facts enclosed, which is with a view to saving unnecessary proof. Probably they are not very material and do not seriously affect the case.

They also ask me to produce the minutes of the Vestry at Easter 1901 and the Agenda for that meeting.

Yours very faithfully,

Arthur Day.

--------------------------------------------------------------

20 March 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Dorking

To -

part of another letter?

1) Number of houses within the Eccl. Parish of St.Mary Magdalene Houses People
The Holmwood as given by Assistant Overseers of Dorking & Capel
respectively after Census 1901
In Dorking Rural - 238 houses, 1141 people
In Capel - 49 houses, 245 people
+ - 287 1386
N.B. The Census Office sent paper for verification with figures of houses from above (very less) wh. Transformed for my reckoning as over 286* by my private Parish Directory
2) All householders being technically ratepayers 286 or 287 is the number of ratepayers. The number 168 is probably that of owners who in many cases the pay the rate for occupiers.
3) One signature was written down by man's wife. Others are doubtful and of non cons(?) Mr.E.Harrison is owner occupier & son's signature useless; also Mr.Hundermore lives with Ferguson; Miss Sayers (i) only a (weekend?) Notteridge is lodger.

Houses reckoned for Parish List.
N.B. one or two may not reckon as separate e.g. over Stables &c.
1 15
2 11
3 31
4 9
5 57
6 59
7 28
8 5
9 32
10 39
286


--------------------------------------------------------------

20 March 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Dorking

Copy.

Dear Sirs,
In answer to yours of 19th inst. I object to send my copy of the Petition re. lights, sent to me on 6th Sept. 1901, as it has my notes on the signatures and written on it, and if Messrs Collyer and Bristow refuse to produce the original of a petition addressed to me which original I have never yet seen, I presume it will be most damaging to their case, and it probably will be because many of the so called signatures were written down by the man who took round the Petition (I am sorry to say he is ill and probably will be unable to attend the hearing.)

You have (I believe) all the letters I have received from Sir Leopold Heath from April the day I quit the case in your hands, 1901, and copies of my answers.
I find I wrote to Sir Leopold 23 April, 2nd and 10th May, 15 July, 6th Sept, and 15 November, probably answer to letters received, but I have no memorandum as to the other dates named by you.

The papers sent by Messrs Collyer and Bristow requiring us to admit certain statements as being facts, I retain lest this should not reach you before you leave town tomorrow, but the admission is impossible.

(1) 2 & 7 re. The number of houses
(2) all householders being technically and for the purpose of voting in Vestry ratepayers 287 is the number.
(3) Of the 122 supposed signatures I have valid objections to five and two more are the names of invalids who probably could not sign, owing to the condition of their health.

Yours faithfully,
RJS Gill.

Please do not fail to bring all the letters &c. I left with you including any you have handed to Mr.Kemp.

Messrs Day & Son.
28 Great George St.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unattached page

Amendment.

To omit all the words after the word "That" and to insert the following;

This Meeting would view with great regret any action which would have the effect of throwing back upon the Donor the ornaments which were given to the church as a memorial to the late Mr.John Vivian Hampton Hampton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 March 1902 - Vestry Meeting

Vestry Meeting in the Parish of St.Mary Magdalene, The Holmwood.

Proposed by Sir Leopold George Heath K.C.B.

Seconded by Mr.Hood.

That in consequence of the Vicar having without a faculty placed upon or immediately over the Communion Table in our Church various ornaments which are disapproved of by a great majority of the parishioners the Petition presented by Admiral Sir Leopold George Heath for their removal which will now be read is hereby approved and he is requested to proceed with the same.

For 37

Against 16

Counted by Churchwardens.

Amendment.

Proposed by Col.Henry Helsham Jones

Seconded by Mr.A.F.Perkins ('Mr.Sydney Hack' crossed out)

To omit all words after 'That' and add -
"This meeting would review with great regret any action which would have the effect of throwing back upon the Donor the ornaments which were given to the Church as a memorial to the late Mr.John Vivian Hampton Hampton.

For 16

Against 29


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


21 March 1902

From - Lady Laura Hampton, Oakdale, The Holmwood.

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood.

Black edged letter for mourning

My dear Mr.Gill,

Mrs.Rumbold has been to see me this evening to tell me about the meeting in Dorking. She says that the impression given on Sir Leopold's side was, that you of your own initiative placed Cross, re, on Altar - and that my name, and its being a Memorial to my husband was not mentioned. In case you are with-holding that fact in consideration for my feelings, I am writing you a line to beg you to let it be known tomorrow that I offered to give the X, ie., as a Memorial to him, and that you, and the Churchwardens accepted my gift.

I would much rather that this was made perfectly clear tomorrow, as it alters the whole complextion of the case. I am so very very sorry that you should have another day's worry and (panic?) and on a Saturday too - Do get someone to preach for you on Sunday, could you not get Mr.Chichester, or Mr.Lang?

You must forgive what I am going to say, but if it could only be a question of £.p.d. with Mr.Lang, (or another) do let me send you a cheque for the amount as I am sure it would be such a relief to you to have a rest. With kindest regards and true sympathy, believe me dear Mr.Gill, yours very truly,
Laura Hampton.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 March 1902

From - Lady Laura Hampton, Oakdale, The Holmwood

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood.

My dear Mr.Gill,

As there seems to have been a misapprehension of facts at the Court on Friday and Saturday last, with respect to my gift to the Church of the Altar Ornaments, I wish the real case to be understood by all my friends on the Holmwood, and should be much obliged to you if you would insert this letter in the next Parish Magazine.

After Mr.Gould's appointment as Vicar, I asked him, in the event of his making any changes which might include the use of Altar Ornaments, to allow me to be the donor of them, as I wished the Cross, &c., to be a Memorial, and to this he agreed.

I never offered the Cross, &c. to Mr.Wickham, for whom I had the greatest friendship, knowing that such a gift would not be acceptable to him, and that under the circumstances it would have pained him to refuse me.

Soon after your arrival here you told me that you had been informed by Mr.Gould that the above had been my wish, and that I was ready to have the Cross &c. made and to present them if and when you might wish to have them in the Church.

Finding that the temporary Re-table with floral Cross and vases, was not objected to, you agreed with me that they were quite unworthy of the place they occupied in the Church, and you therefore accepted my offer to replace them with suitable Ornaments &c., subject of course to the approval of the Churchwardens, - which consent was obtained.

Upon this, - and not before - I ordered the Ornament &c., to be made. As you know I had great difficulty in obtaining the Cedar of Lebanon to match the Reredos, also in getting my wishes with regard to the Cross, &c., carried out to my satisfaction, all the things first sent having to be returned.

I would also mention that it was at the request of the late Vicar that I gave the temporary Retable and flower cross.

My having waited eleven years to give this Memorial of my beloved husband is, I think, a sufficient proof that I did not wish to force my gift on an unwilling congregation.

The reason I chose this form of Memorial was, that I might carry out a wish he did not live to fulfill.

Believe dear Mr.Gill, yours very truly,
Laura E. Hampton

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 April 1902
Morning Post.

Surrey Ritual Case.

In the Consistory Court of Winchester judgment was delivered yesterday in an important ritual case which was tried before the Chancellor of the diocese (Mr.Harold C.G.Browne) a few weeks since.

Application was made by Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, in the form of a petition, against the Rev.R.J.S.Gill, vicar of Holmwood, Surrey, asking that a faculty might be granted ordering the removal of certain church ornaments. A cross and re-table had been erected in the parish church, and had been placed behind the holy table, together with candlesticks and vases, without any authority from the consistory.

The parishioners were almost unanimous in their request to have the ornaments removed, but the vicar had not removed them, and Admiral Heath, after writing to him, expressing sorrow that "the Ritualistic flag had been hoisted in the parish," commenced proceedings.

Counsel's argument for the vicar was that there was no decision which would show that a re-table in itself was illegal, and as to the lighting of candles it was, he contended, laid down in the Lincoln judgment that if the candles were not lighted ceremoniously during the service their use was not illegal.

Chancellor Browne, in his judgment, ordered the ornaments to be removed as illegal ornaments, each party to pay his own costs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19 April 1902 (received 21 April 1902)

From - Ira Jennings, 5 The Beacon, Exmouth. (from Aldershot)

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood.

Dear Mr.Gill,

I must write and send you most heartfelt sympathy both from my Sister and myself on all the annoyance you have had about the very innocent adjunct you have put into your Church. I suppose
your only sin, was in not getting the "faculty" first. If they "blush" in the next world I think our dear good "Harold Brown" will have blushed that his son and namesake should have been the one to condemn you. And my Sister feels injured that our old "Admiral" should be the instrument of 'stirring up strife' in your Parish.

Be assured how very very sorry we are you should have had this needless annoyance and expense. How are you both? You cannot tell how often are longingly and regretfully spoken of in Aldershot.

I am again, you will see, away from home having come here to spend Easter with my poor Sister, who has been confined to her room for the last ten weeks, with severe Sciatica and Rheumatism in the knees which quite prevents from going down stairs. So she is thankful to have me here, as I read to her by the hour together, but I cannot altogether forsake my Aldershot duties - so in another fortnight I hope to be back again in my own Quarters and work.

Mrs.Monkton (Monlton?) Barrett is in Lodgment here, so I see her most days. Her husband (like everyone else out in South Africa) - her boy grown a great fellow, now with her for his Easter. Though quite crippled still she suffers rather less than in Aldershot days.

Mrs.Newcome and I are as close friends as ever, and Rose is just perfect! My Duty to the wife,, and love to yourself. Ever most faithfully yours,
Ira Jennings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 April 1902

From - 24 The Cloisters, Windsor Castle

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood.

My dear Mr.Gill,

By all means keep the Ornaments in the Vestry, I only said I would accept them, but (correct) me if you intended your letter to be (the?) offer, as if a formal one was needed, if the former to send them to Oakdale.

My mother and I have read the judgment in the Surrey Advertiser and the Dorking paper, and in both accounts we think Sir Leopold got (snubbed?). I don't suppose he would say so. And that you came out all right. Who would have imagined an architectural difficulty! We did have the maker of the reredos Jones & Willis (I made a mistake in my letter to Mrs.Gill and said Whipple) to see it, to suggest how the retable could be fixed and who was to have made it had we been able to procure the wood.

After reading the judgment it seems to me it would be quite open to you to have an Architects design to raise the picture and then to apply for a Faculty to replace the Cross and as all the things were declared lawful and the judgment did not go on the majority of the parishioners being against them - if it would be wise to do so just (had, read?) it is for you and the Churchwardens to decide.

I should be quite willing to pay (within reason) for any design and alteration of Reredos which I should have had to have done if in the first place we had applied for the Faculty.

I only make this as a suggestion, don't trouble to answer this letter for I may be all wrong, and no doubt if my view is correct your lawyers have already put it before you.

I have just returned from London, my sister still very suffering but going on well.

With kindest regards, yours very truly,

Laura Hampton


P.S. I expect to be home on the 3rd or 5th, the boys send love, they are looking much better for their change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25 April 1902

The Church Times (newspaper articles)

Another Chancellor's Judgment.

The Cross at Holmwood Church

In the Surrey Registry Office in Doctors' Commons, on Wednesday, the Chancellor of the diocese of Winchester, (Mr.H.C.Gore Browne) delivered judgment in the application made by Admiral Sir Leopold Heath and other parishioners of South Holmwood, Surrey, for a faculty for the removal of a retable, a metal cross, two candlesticks, and two vases from the church of St.Mary Magdalene, of which the Rev.R.J.S.Gill is vicar.

The hearing of the application took place at South Holmwood, when a considerable body of evidence was given against the retention of the ornaments. The vicar, on the other hand, applied for a confirmation faculty authorising him to retain the articles complained of. Mr.Dibdin K.C., and Mr.Errington were for the petitioners, and Mr.Kempe for the vicar and churchwardens.

The Chancellor, in giving judgment, said that the retable was fixed to the reredos above the holy table, and had remained there with the ornaments on it. It was contended by the petitioners that the retable and ornaments looked like part of the structure of the holy table, nor the cross seem to stand on or be connected with the holy table.

He accordingly considered within that the cross was not an illegal ornament within the terms of the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of "Liddell v. Westeron" and "Durst v. Master." The retable, cross, and other ornaments were, however, put up without a faculty and without the sanction of a vestry meeting, and there was no evidence that any architect was consulted.

He accepted Mr.Gill's statement that he consulted the churchwardens, and that he thought no faculty was necessary, as he considered he was putting more suitable substitutes in the place of similar objects; but for reasons mentioned, among others, he decreed that a faculty should issue authorising the removal of the retable, cross, candlesticks, and vases.

The Chancellor refused an application by Mr.Dibdin for costs against the vicar and churchwardens. He ordered that each side should pay its own costs, and expressed the hope that charity and goodwill would prevail, and that the parish might again become united in the worship of God in one house.

Lady Laura Hampton explains in a letter in the parish magazine that finding that a temporary retable, with floral cross and vases, were not objected to, she replaced these as a memorial to her husband, and the fact of having waited eleven years was a proof that she did not wish to force her gift upon an unwilling congregation.

---

The principle of local option has got itself established in the Consistory Court of Winchester. A structure had been placed in the church of St.Mary Magdalene, Holmwood, to hold a cross and candlesticks, superseding another which had been behind the altar for six months without protest.

At the Easter vestry meeting, following the erection of the new structure, no complaint was raised, but since than a parishioner has agitated against it, and an action was accordingly brought in the Consistory Court for its removal. The learned Chancellor, in giving judgment, admitted the legality of the retable and ornaments, and also that they favour with some of the parishioners. Nevertheless, he granted the faculty for their removal on two grounds.

The retable, he held, was architecturally unsuitable, though this point does not appear to have been urged by the petitioner. His second ground was that, the retable having been placed in the church without a faculty, he had not been assured of the parishioners' approval, and he saw no reason for thinking that the vote of the vestry, had it been taken at the time of the erection, would have differed from that taken immediately before the trial, which showed a majority in favour of the faculty now asked for.

It was an initial mistake to introduce the structure without a faculty, but that does not make the Chancellor's judgment any the more intelligible and proper. As we saw in the recent Scarborough case, another Chancellor condoned the utterly illegal action of a vicar and churchwardens, because it was prompted by Protestant zeal.

In this case the judge declines to condone the neglect of due formality in doing a perfectly legal thing in deference to a Protestant agitation.

We despair of the justice of our diocesan courts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 April 1902 (or 27th.)

From L.G.Walton, 37 Hanover Square, London

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood

Very bad handwriting


Admiral Sir Leopold Heath might have found better employment than running foul of your very modest ornaments. What a miserable thing a Protestant mind in man we say from such God would deliver us.

It is much to the Chancellor's discredit that he was so (disinclined?) to as to help the --- doesn't cut when by one word he could have helped you.

Very very bad.

Church times may well disposed of such men.

I sympathise very much with you in the loss of your (case, cross?). Its the first thing I look for when I visit a new church. I worship in St.Mary Magdalen (Braodfd?) where we have nearly everything a Catholic could desire.

Its not - - of planting our cross above the alter where the church was consecrated.

I hope the disaffection will come for a better state of mind. - - - the whole Catholic faith you will (canc?) to keep at it in small doses, until you get a bit rubbed in by degrees.

And be on the rest of them
E.G.Walton

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30 April 1902 - Sunday 3rd after Easter.

From - Capel Vicarage, Dorking

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Sir,

I must write a brief line to express my sincere sympathy with you on this iniquitous judgment. I call it iniquitous because it seems to me to be utterly illegal - but I suppose that there is no appeal in the matter and the ornaments must go though how they explain away the rubric to me if those things that no one can understand.

You will, I hope, continue at Holmwood all the same and put in many years of useful and happy work in that parish. Sir Leopold has unhappily won the day but I rejoice to think that the moral victory is not with him.

There will be many friends who will sympathise and (liken??) you and yours in this unfortunate matter and among them none more sincerely than yours ever A.J.S.Fowell(?)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 May 1902

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood

To - Lord Bishop Randall Winton

My dear Lord Bishop,

As I have occasion to write your Lordship on a matter of business connected with this living, I hope you will excuse me for further encroaching upon you, - - - with this letter I in common with many of my parishioners, (though I am alone responsible for what I now write), feel aggrieved by the Chancellor's judgment in the case of Heath v the Vicar and Churchwardens &c. of Holmwood.

Firstly, The question of architectural unsuitability upon which the decision was partly based was not raised by the petitioners; expert opinion was not cited, and the precedent of the Cathedral church of the diocese where first a floral cross and later a metal cross upon a retable of the same material as the screen, the ornaments in front of the picture, was closely followed in the case of Holmwood Church, ('as the enclosed photograph will show' crossed out)

The Chancellor referred to the erection of the memorial retable and ornaments here as an "unnecessary innovation" whereas it is held by many that such ornaments are distinctly ordered in the Prayer Book and loyalty to the Prayer Book on the part of the clergy is the chief safeguard of the = = = laity in such matters.

The Chancellor himself considered that the cross was not an "illegal ornament."

('Further' crossed out. Why?) The judgment has gravely compromised my position and influence in the Parish by giving support to the contention of the Petitioner that I had ('tried to' crossed out) wilfully ignored and opposed the wishes = = = of my parishioners. This was distinctly done by absolutely no notice having been taken in the judgment of the Easter Vestry 1901 held exactly a week after the retable and ornaments were put up, and no weight was given to the fact that at that vestry meeting not only was no objection urged by anyone, but further the same peoples' Church warden who was = = = equally responsible as I was for the erection of the retable &c., was unanimously re-elected!

The Vestry vote 30 to 16 in of ('Sir L' crossed out) the Petition on 20 March 1902 which was the one relied upon by the Chancellor was gained after nine months agitation, and though it was claimed that 128 signatures had been obtained in favour = = = of holding the Vestry and for the Petition only 30 of them were present and recorded their vote.

I shall further be obliged by your Lordship's direction as to the disposal of the retable cross, candlesticks and vases now removed from their place in the church. I was present when the judgment was delivered and at my request our counsel asked, (I copy for short-hand report) "I presume under the circumstances the Vicar will be authorized to return the articles to the donor."
The Chancellor "I think so"

Mr.Dibdin "Of course that is a matter in your discretion.

The Chancellor, "I think under the circumstances it would be the fair thing to be done, I do not for = = = a moment anticipate that the Vicar would refuse to do so."

Your Lordship will observe that here is no distinct authorization and though I am aware that the Lady Laura Hampton is willing to receive back the articles; I presume that having been once accepted by the Vicar and Churchwardens (and dedicated for use in the Church) they are the property of the parishioners represented in law by the Vicar; and that if I returned them without full authority I shall at any time be liable to be sued by an aggrieved parishioner in respect of their disposal.

Yours very faithfully and sincerely,
R.J.S.Gill

(= = = new page) not sure if I have them in the right order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 May 1902

From - Randall Winton, Bishop of Winchester, Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Mr.Gill,

I have no hesitation in saying that I think, after what passed in Court, that you would act rightly in returning to Lady Laura Hampton the Ornaments the removal of which has been directed by the Chancellor. This seems to me to be perfectly right.

I am, Yours very truly,
(Randall Winton?) (Bishop of Winchester)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 May 1902

From - Randall Winton, Bishop of Winchester, Farnham Castle, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Private & Confidential.

My dear Gill,
In reply to your important private letter about the Chancellor's recent judgment you will I think see that it is simply impossible for me as Bishop to revise a judgment formally given by the Judge of the Diocesan Court after the fullest and most patient hearing and enquiry. I think I shall not be wrong in telling you quite privately and confidentially, that I happened to be sitting next to Mr.Kempe a few days ago at dinner, and he told me that, glad as he would have been to obtain a judgment i his own favour, he felt bound to say that the Chancellor could not, he thought, have given legally any other judgment than he did. Of course this is for your own information only.

I am not myself sufficiently familiar with all the details to form an independent opinion about it, but in all these matters I am as Bishop absolutely bound to uphold the Judge of our Diocesan Court, and I think you are mistaken if you imagine that he over-looked anything in preparing the very careful judgment which he gave. It has been to me a source of immense distress that these difficulties should have arisen in the Parish, and, as you know, I feel very keen sympathy for you in all difficulties in which have been placed.

I enclose f formal letter about the return of the Ornaments.

I am, yours very truly,
Randall Winton. (Randell Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury)

(handwritten) I think the Chancellor did his best (by not sueing costs etc) to prevent any such feeling as you refer to from being fairly entertained. I I am sure you will try to smooth weather new by the exercise of ex - - - courtesy and kindness to those who were your opponents.

P.S. With regard to the other matter about which you write, I am not sufficiently clear as to what is technically right and I am consulting my Legal Secretary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 August 1902

From - The Rev. R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Dorking

To - Colonel Henry Helsham-Jones

Copy

My dear Colonel Helsham-Jones,

I have looked at the Admiral's letter again and thought the matter over carefully and fear that no good result could come from my writing further to him.
I couldn't believe that he thinks I take his view of the matter in face of what I wrote in my letters, and I do not understand that he has, up to the present, said or written anything, to your knowledge or mine, in which he claims my acquiescence. Should he however do so, I should think it right to plainly make it known, that I entirely disagree with him, and believe that by a partial statement he has gravely mis-represented your action in the matter. You are at liberty to use this letter in any way you like.

Yours very sincerely,
(signed)
R.J.S.Gill

I did not answer the Admiral's questions in his last letter of the 29th July for I did not think them worth answering after what I had already written.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 August 1902

From - The Rev. R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Dorking

To - Colonel Henry Helsham-Jones, Redlands, Holmwood

Copy

Dear Col. Helsham-Jones,

On receipt of your note I have to mine of the 4th August 02, you will, I think fully supplies what you require.

I have no hesitation however, in saying that I believe your statement about the incident in question to be perfectly correct, and that the letter which you showed me addressed to you by Sir Leopold (about June 26th 1901 I believe was the date) appeared to me to fully bear out your statement.

You are at liberty to use this letter and mine of the 7th inst. in any way you think best.

Yours very sincerely,
R.J.S.Gill

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 August 1902

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I believe you know that Mr.Arthur Helsham-Jones has taken up the cudgels on his brother's behalf in this fresh quarrel. He writes to me that my letter to his brother "has been accepted by the Vicar in proving his case." I understand from you that you did not wish to be mired up in the matter but as you have given to Mr.Helsham Jones your opinion on the subject (which he was against me) I will quote in self-defence my answer to him.

"I regret that I have not got my letter of June 22 to refer to but I believe the paragraph on which you principally rely as proving your brother's contention is one in which I gave him most effusive thanks for something which he promised to do in the way of mediation in his letter of June 26th and the quotation is - Did he in that letter in which mediation was undoubtedly promised attach to it the condition that I was not to write a certain letter to the local paper, and did I on the 27th accept that condition if it really was made?

The facts are as follows;
On the 26th I wrote to the paper.
On the 26th your brother wrote a letter to me which cannot be found.
On the 27th I wrote effusive thanks to him, at which time the paper must have been already printed and was being preparedfor the evening post.

Do you really contend that I could have given effusive thanks to a man who has promised to do something for me provided I complied with what I knew was an impossible condition? And should have gone through the useless process of giving him the correspondence to study?

If you really hold that opinion you must believe me not only void of all sense of what is honourable but to have been very fulsome in the disease called suffering of the brain, it is exactly what a sly lunatic would have done."

Do not trouble yourself to answer this. I only want you to know that your (diction? disdain?) is at least disputable.

L.G.Heath

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

date

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

My dear Mr.Gill,

I should be glad to known whether Mr.Betts has allowed your description of our Church as the Holmwood Parish Church to pass without remonstrance.

It seems to me from your account of the history of the case that the proper course our Ecclesiastical district is "St.Mary Magdalene." There is no parish of Holmwood and never has been. We were part of Dorking Parish until the act establishing Parish Councils &c was passed and then we became "Dorking Rural" divided for voting purposes into two wards - Holmwood ward and Westcott ward. But this all relates to the civil nomenclature.

As to the proper name for the Ecclesiastical District, it would seem from your statement both in the newspaper and in the magazine that it is St.Mary Magdalene and the "at Holmwood" would seem to be added merely to distinguish it from the many other St.Mary Magdalenes.

You say in the Magazine that it is confusing, and wholly incorrect to speak of the Parish as South Holmwood. My own view is that it is the (nearer, manner?) is confusing and that although you rightly say that the term is wholly incorrect Holmwood alone is equally so.

Yours very truly,

L.G.Heath

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood,c/o Mrs.Kennedy, Westlake Bay Avenue,

To - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath, Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

Copy

Dear Sir Leopold Heath,

I only received your note on Monday, a very busy day as I left Holmwood on Tuesday for my holiday leaving Rev.R.Edmunds Jones M.A. (guest?) curate of Ross, in charge at the Vicarage.

I am not aware that in my notice as to the name of my parish in the Parish Magazine and Dorking Addvertiser I have stated anything beyond the fact as to the name of the parish as given in the Order of Council by which it was made a separate Ecclesiastical district (a matter quite distinct from the civil district) not that my friend Mr.Betts will be in any way aggrieved by such a statement, but am satisfied that he would communicate with me direct were that the case.

Yours faithfully,

R.J.S.Gill


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 September 1902

From - Admiral Sir Leopold Heath K.C.B., Anstie Grange, Holmwood, Surrey

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Holmwood Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

Dear Mr.Gill,

Lady Heath wishes to send you XX4 as a contribution towards paying off school fund deficiency but I have persuaded her not to distract your well-earned holiday by actually forwarding the cheque but I hold it in trust for you when you return.

I send you a copy of the Dorking Advertiser and hope I have convinced you that we must descend from our high position of the Holmwood Parish Church and accept either -
"St.Mary Magdalene Parish Church at Holmwood."
or simply
"St.Mary Magdalene Parish Church" as our official description but I suspect in common parlance we shall continue to be the "South Holmwood Church."

I hope you will not disturb your holiday by answering this and that you and yours may thoroughly enjoy it.

Your substitute gives great satisfaction.

Yours very truly,

L.G.Heath

note from RJSG - Ans 13-9-02 asking to pay into L&C.Bank School Account
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unattached page

To - The Rev.R.J.S.Gill, The Vicarage, Holmwood, Surrey

- - in fact, nothing to with either. It had the much more prosaic object of increasing for the Queen the (Girds?), which being no longer required by law, would have been wasted or embezzled, as former experience in the reign of King Edward had amply demonstrated.

Hid fr 100.-

I shall be very glad to lend you the book, if you should wish to study the matter further.

With kind remembrances, ever most faithfully yours.

John Harding.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no date

Copy of Letters in Bk.

Copy of Parish Vestry letters

Power of Parishioners to requisition Vestry.

No objection made by Sir L G Heath probably so could (usuble?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

---

1922

---