was a pew with glazed windows to enable those who sat in it to see the preacher or the congregation, and windows too with sliding shutters. Sometimes their privacy was invaded by unwelcome intruders, for there is an entry in the church books of St. Margaret, Westminster, under A.D. 1610, "Paid to Goodwyfe Wells for salt to destroy the fleas in the churchwarden's pew, 6d." It would thus seem that the churchwardens' pew, at any rate, was upholstered. And thus the parish churches became choked up in two or three generations with these enclosures. As the wealthy hid themselves in large square or oblong boxes, so those of shorter purse emulously cooped themselves up in deep wooden troughs, very often nailing precious old screenwork to the existing oak benches in order to make their fencing of the fashionable height. Soon these encroachments on the area began to tell seriously. The cheapest way to obtain more sittings was to build galleries; and these, accordingly, under the name of "lofts" or "scaffolds," came into notice in the latter years of King Charles I.; and became much more common after the Restoration.

Rents for pews were not very far behind when quasi-proprietary rights once gained a footing. Churchwardens and vestries began to make a charge for these privileges, especially in London, where the vestrymen were wont to display a somewhat invasive temper. We find them naming both churchwardens, claiming chancel as well as nave, and dealing freely with pews and sittings, without apparently troubling themselves much about Bishop and Chancellor, in such parishes as St. Margaret's, Westminster, and St. Michael's, Cornhill. But some uncertainty hangs over early notices of "gatherings for the pews," as these are called in the accounts of the latter church about 1555; for we do not know how far they might be voluntary contributions. It is about this time, however, that Bishop Bale, a very vituperative writer, in denouncing various kinds of Popish money getting, speaks of "shrines, images, church stoles, (i.e. stools) and pews that are well payed for " (Image of Both Churches). The Ecclesiastical courts always condemned the practice of pew-renting whenever and wherever it was set up; but we know how it spread notwithstanding. The successive Church Building Acts, which date from A.D. 1818, in adopting and enacting the system in churches founded in pursuance of their provisions, did no more than follow the custom of the country; and by following it contributed very much to extend and to prolong it.

It is certain very many of these pews and galleries were erected without any warrant whatever, at the pleasure of the great or the wealthy, in mere usurpation. But not seldom, too, the sanction of the ecclesiastical courts was sought and obtained. The applications appear to have been often ex parte, but opposition to them seems to have been very rare indeed. The consent of incumbent and churchwardens is often pleaded. It is alleged also very commonly that petitioners had no seat suitable to their quality, and were willing to build at their own Then we find allegations that the church will be improved by the new structure, and even beautified, and its accommodation increased. The courts followed no system in making the grants demanded of them; sometimes they appropriate the seat to a man and his family; sometimes to a man and his wife and the survivor; sometimes for a term of years; sometimes so long as they attend the church or remain

cost.

parishioners. Doubtless the exaction of rents was helped in many cases by the fact that the appropriation was made quite indefinitely. I suspect, however, that in many cases the court neither intended to do nor did what has been supposed. In the registers at Chester there are very many faculties recorded decreed a few years before or after A.D. 1700, with clauses like this: the applicants, mostly a group of parishioners, are authorised to erect a gallery of specified dimensions; to appropriate to themselves and their successors respectively such of the seats or pews in it as they think fit and have occasion for; and to "dispose of the rest to such other inhabitants of the said parish as stand in need of the same, and will at reasonable rates in proportion to the charge expended on this account become purchasers thereof, to and for the use of standing, sitting, and kneeling, and hearing divine service, and sermons in the same." This is to our idea very objectionable. But this represents the manner in which our forefathers then found it most easy to enlarge the church accommodation without putting the parish to expense. And observe there appears to be nothing here to show that my worshipful predecessors ever supposed that these seats would be locked up and kept empty when their proprietors did not want them. Nor is there anything to warrant the buying and selling of the seats for all time. It looks as if the clause in the faculty authorising one sale was intended to recoup the enterprising parishioners who built the gallery, and that then its authority was spent.

A few words may be in place about the churchwardens. Mr. Toulmin Smith, in his book entitled "The Parish,* says roundly, 'that churchwardens are not and never were ecclesiastical officers; that they are merely temporal officers; chosen by the laymen of the parish to take charge of things of temporal estate," and vehement protests are made by him against this "encroachment" of the church authorities upon the office. But any one who will read a few pages of his work will see how inconsistent Mr. Toulmin Smith is with himself in this part of his argument, and will notice also how his Nonconformist prejudice utterly distorts his views both of law and history. The "encroachments" in this, as in other matters, have been all from the other side. Mr. Toulmin Smith affirms much the same things about the parish as he does about its churchwardens, and with just as little accuracy. The parish is essentially a district for spiritual purposes. A parish is " a circuit of ground committed to the charge of one person who has cure of souls therein." When Englishmen awoke to the need of taking corporate action for certain local purposes, the country was already mapped out into these ecclesiastical divisions. And the parish vestry and its officers, originally constituted for Church purposes, became in process of time clothed with various secular duties by the State for the temporal advantage of the community. It is too bad now to turn round and claim the whole machinery and managers as merely temporal functionaries. The name churchwardens and their admission by the Ordinary, which the lawyers have been trying for a long time to extenuate and get rid of as much as possible, bear clear witness to the essential nature of the office. The earliest mention I know of churchwardens is in Lyndwood's "Provinciale," where they are called "Guardiani Ecclesiæ."

"The Parish," by Toulmin Smith, 2nd edition, 1857, pp. 69, 70, 90, etc.

But Lyndwood, writing early in the fifteenth century, refers to them in connection with a constitution of Archbishop Walter Reynold bearing date A.D. 1322; and they would seem to have been in full responsibility as guardians of the Church and the Church's goods at that earlier date. Mr. Toulmin Smith may call this a temporal function if he will. It is anyhow an ecclesiastical function also, and for its due discharge the churchwardens beyond a doubt had to answer to the bishop, whence they surely may be properly designated the bishop's officers. As regards their election, Mr. Toulmin Smith says that Canon 89 of 1603 makes a daring and insidious encroachment on the rights of parishioners in speaking of the appointment as resting with incumbent and vestry, and in prescribing that if they differ the incumbent shall name one, the vestry the other. No doubt the original view was that they should be chosen by incumbent and vestry jointly; or rather by the vestry of which the incumbent is chairman and head. But in many of the Lancashire and Cheshire parishes both have been ousted from their rights. The wardens-sometimes four or six in number-are named by the lord of the manor, or by the court leet. Another anomaly is found in ancient parishes divided by the Church Building Acts for ecclesiastical purposes. The householders in the new parish elect their own churchwarden. But those who inhabit what remains to the mother church do not have the same right. Every ratepayer throughout the whole of the ancient parish retains his right to come to the ancient parish vestry meeting and take a share in its business. The fact is, that the civil and temporal functions which clustered round the office of churchwarden have dropped away, and it is time that the law was adapted to the state of things thus resulting. Nor since chuch-rates are no more, can I see any right and justice in ratepayers as such coming to the church vestry, dealing with moneys which are merely freewill offerings, and electing a churchwarden whose sole duties now centre round the church and its services. The Compulsory Churchrates Abolition Act of 1868 recognises the right principle in that it takes away from a man who does not pay a voluntary church rate all vote and voice about the expenditure of money to which he has refused to contribute. I think the rights of parishioners in their parish churches are invaded when money offered by them on the Lord's-table is taken and disposed of by men who need not be Churchmen or Christians at all. As regards seating the parishioners I believe that generally speaking the best thing the churchwardens can do is to leave the parishioners to seat themselves. But, as a safeguard to the rights of parishioners, I think also that it is important that the power of the churchwardens in this matter should be recognised and preserved. They are bound to interpose in case of indecorum or disorder, or to prevent parishioners being ousted by an influx of strangers. When the church has ample room for all, I see no objection to the sittings being appropriated if desired, provided that no personal preferences be given, and possession resumed of the whole every Easter. In fact a churchwarden's power extends only to his year of office. The greatest care should be taken to check the growth of proprietary ideas in church seats, and the main reason why I ventured to review the history of pew proprietorship was this-that it seemed to me instructive, and a very necessary warning to note how one evil grew as it were spontaneously out of another. Each free sitting ought to be provided with its own kneeler,

Bible, Prayer Book, and Hymn Book. People should have nothing to take to church but themselves. When these private properties are left in church, the owner expects to find them where he left them, and a sort of proprietorship in the seat is unconsciously established. Our free and open church societies have done good work; at the same time I feel bound to say that they have sometimes said and done things which are to be regretted. One of these societies has of late been warmly espousing the views of Mr. Toulmin Smith, to which I have already adverted. Might I hint that it is better not to go to determined enemies of the Church for the history of Church institutions, and for a right estimate of the character and duties of Church officers? And I would hint also that in many of our parishes we find godly and influential men willing to bear the burden of the churchwarden's office, just because they esteem it to be precisely what these men say it is not -an office pertaining to the things of God, in the discharge of which they are answerable to their bishop. So again the same zealots are backing Mr. Albert Grey's Parish Churches Bill, which practically abolishes the episcopal authority over church seats. Might I once again remark that it seems dangerous, and pessimi exempli, to invoke the aid of Parliament in these times to abridge the jurisdiction of the Bishop? I protest also against the unjust and sometimes cruel words which have been used about some incumbents and churchwardens, because, having unfortunately inherited a bad system, they don't see their way instantly to upset all their existing arrangements, declare every seat free and unappropriated, and debit every expense to the offertory. In many parishes you could not get any men to accept the office of warden at all with no resource for funds except one which they have been wont to regard as precarious. I protest against the language to which I have referred in the interests of the free and open church movement itself, because its champions often prejudice their own cause by their intemperate advocacy. For the most part incumbents of pew rented churches would only be too glad to get a substantial endowment, and to emancipate their church seats; but when not only the church expenses, but the bread of his wife and children come out of pew rents, a man may be forgiven if he thinks once, twice, or even thrice before he abolishes them. And remember that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not recognise such surrender in considering claims for an endowment. have in Lancashire and Cheshire scores of churches erected in the earlier decades of the century, in which there is not a penny either for minister or wardens, except the pew-rents. The circumstances in which these are left when the pew-rent-paying population has ebbed away from them are sad indeed. In some cases we have managed to free them from their bondage, under the Act 32 and 33 Vict., c. 94-an Act not sufficiently known-which offers great facilities for the surrender to the bishop of proprietorship in pews. I wish the societies would give direct help in getting such reforms effected; that they would try to work through incumbents and churchwardens, offering advice and support in resisting aggressions on the rights of parishioners, and in getting rid of old usurpations. They should be more on the watch than they sometimes are; should press on parishes the good reasons they have for recommending their plans; the examples they have of such plans being successfuly worked. They would secure results more quickly if they

We

would abstain from attacks on the churchwarden's office, and from attempts to disquiet parishes where good work is being done, even though not always on the best lines.

But in spite of mistakes in policy, the movement referred to is undoubtedly wholesome. One great "question of the day," for this Congress at any rate, is how to get the people into church? To that question the Church of England is bound to find an answer-bound to do so promptly, perhaps under heavy penalties. "Free and open " churches are not the panacea which some think them. They bring certain inconveniences peculiar to themselves. In a neighbourhood like mine, where we have churches that are full as well as free, the clergy cannot tell who is at church and who is not. In a neighbourhood like mine, where people will not be bound by parochial limitation, there are those who attend church for months and months before the incumbent finds it out. Yet free and open churches are essential conditions

of success.

The rights of parishioners in their parish churches make one think of the correlative duties; the duty of personal participation in the worship, the duty of conscientious contribution to the cost of it. For my part, I believe that the surest way to win men to perform the duties, is to own fully, frankly, and practically, the equal rights of all parishioners in their parish churches.

H. CLARK, Esq.

BEFORE examining the subject of the ecclesiastical rights of parishioners in connection with their churches, it may not be lost time to clear the ground by considering (1) the purpose of a parish church; (2) to whom it belongs; and (3) why do people frequent it? This building, according to its title deeds, and the words solemnly proclaimed by the bishop in the ears of the congregation, has been dedicated for ever to a special object, viz., the service and worship of Almighty God, that Being whose greatness and glory no tongue can define, and no heart conceive. "The Palace is not for man, but for the Lord God." Its proprietor is the King of kings and Lord of lords. Hence we enter its precincts with a feeling of awe, and being none other than the House of God and the gate of heaven, we realise the command once given-"Take off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground!"

This building, then, belongs to God, and the motive which takes us to it is to perform a certain public act. This being over, we leave the church, which, where large populations exist, fills and refills, or should do so, many times over on the Lord's Day morning. In this way a moderately small building will suffice for thousands to frequent it. This public act which we perform, let it be remembered, is not to satisfy any selfish considerations. It is not one for the purpose of gaining any thing, or for what is commonly called "getting good." The chief motive in going to church is not even for the saving of our souls. It is to witness for God in the world. It is for the purpose of giving, not getting, of offering something, viz., praise and thanksgiving, homage and