'Anno Domini, 1640[108].'
The general adoption of pews began with Puritanism, and with its increase they too grew in width and stature. First of all, people were satisfied with the uniform arrangement and space of the old oak benches, only erecting on the top of them an ugly and useless panelling of deal. This was bad enough, but worse soon followed; and, to make the seats more luxurious, first one bench was taken away, and the two benches made one pew; then two were removed, then three, till at last it required the removal of six benches, which formerly would accommodate thirty persons, to make one pew to accommodate two or three. Now, either men are giants in these days and were pigmies in those days, or else the pride and luxury of man claim a prominence now in God's House, which was quite unknown then. I will ask either of you, gentlemen, to decide which is the true explanation."
"I fear it must be against ourselves," said Mr. Parvener.
"I fear so, indeed[109]. But now let me explain to you more fully what are the real evils of this wretched pew system. And first, as to the private pew—for, besides sharing in the evils of all the rest, it has some peculiarly its own. Of these, the pride it fosters, and the 'respect of persons,' so severely condemned by St. James, are the worst. My dear sir, I assure you it has often made my blood boil to see some poor old man with his venerable bare head exposed to the cold draught of a neglected part of the church, whilst a young, pampered son of fortune has been cushioned up under the stately canopy of his own pew[110]. Oh, sir, I'm sure you must agree with me that this is altogether against the spirit of Christianity! I'm no leveller out of church; the social distinctions must be there kept up; but in God's House these should have no place at all. Then, surely, the luxury of many of these private pews is altogether inconsistent with the object of our meeting in the House of Prayer. It is—as it shows the progress of luxury, and its concomitant, effeminacy—a curious circumstance, that when the custom of having pews in our churches began to spread, they were, by our hardy ancestors, considered as too great indulgences, and as temptations to repose. Their curtains and bed-furniture, their cushions and sleep, have, by a long association of ideas, become intimately connected. The Puritans thought pews the devil's baby, or booby hutches[111]. I have heard that in America they go even beyond us in the luxury of pews, and that in Boston some of them are actually lined with velvet[112]. I believe that both there and here the private pew system has done very much, not only to force the poor from the Church, but to drive many of all classes over to dissent."
"I can't see how that can be," said the Baronet.
Why, "naturally enough, sir, for they find all this the very opposite to what the Church professes to be and to teach. They see the rich exalted, and the poor debased; they find a house of pride, instead of a house of prayer.
"The exclusiveness of this system is one of the most curious as well as absurd features in its history. True, the change in our social habits has created a change for the better here; but much of the old temper survives. You would hardly believe, perhaps, that years ago it was not only considered an impropriety for the squire and the dame to sit in the same pew with any of their inferior fellow-worshippers, but the presence of their own children[113] was even considered an indecent intrusion. This was, indeed, ridiculous; but, in truth, the whole system would be monstrously grotesque, were it not so very wicked.
"There is a curious inscription on an old seat in a church at Whalley, which seems to throw some light on the early history of private pews; it is this:—'My man Shuttleworth, of Hacking, made this form, and here will I sit when I come, and my Cousin Nowell may make one behind me if he please, and my sonne Sherburne shall make one on the other side, and Mr. Catterall another behind him; and for the residue, the use shall be first come first speed, and that will make the proud wives of Whalley rise betimes to come to church[114].'
"The first seat thus appropriated was, no doubt, a rude wooden bench; but certain it is, that no sooner were even these claimed as private property than quarrelling began[115]; and the quarrel has, alas! been kept up to our own day. The right to these faculty pews, as they are called, is, however, in most cases very questionable, and often leads to costly law processes[116]. Many sensible men and earnest Churchmen are giving up their supposed right to them, and are contented to take their place in church like ordinary mortals. I sincerely trust, gentlemen, this may be your case.
"Now, let me notice a few of the evils which are common to all pews. They tend to destroy the unity and uniformity of common worship, which forms so grand a feature in our church system. 'They are very inconvenient to kneel down in, necessarily oblige some to sit with their backs to the speaker, and when they rise up, present a scene of confusion, as if they were running their heads against one another[117]. As God's House is a House of Praise and Prayer, so before all things the arrangement there should have reference to the proper posture[118] of praise and prayer. Then see how these pews shelter and encourage levity in God's House. As long ago as the year 1662, a bishop of Norwich wrote this satire upon pews: 'There wants nothing but beds to hear the Word of God on. We have casements, locks and keys, and cushions—I had almost said bolsters and pillows—and for those we love the church. I will not guess what is done within them: who sits, stands, or lies asleep at prayers, communion, &c.; but this, I dare say, they are either to hide some vice or to proclaim one[119].' I will only mention one more objection to pews: they harbour dust and dirt[120], and otherwise disfigure the beauty of our churches."