PEWS

These are enclosed seats in churches. Pews, according to modern use and idea, were not known till long after the Reformation. Enclosed pews were not in general use before the middle of the seventeenth century: they were for a long time confined to the family of the patron. There were, however, long before there were enclosed pews, appropriated seats: and as concerning seats many disputes arise, we will mention what the law is as to these particulars. As to seats in the body of the church, the freehold of the soil is in the incumbent, and the seats are fixed to the freehold; yet, because the church itself is dedicated to the service of God , and the seats are built that the people may more conveniently attend Divine service, therefore, where there is any contention about a seat in the body of the church, upon complaint made to the ordinary, he may decide the controversy by placing that person in it whom he thinks fit: and this power is conferred upon him by law, because he who has the general cure of souls within his diocese, is presumed to have a due regard to the qualities of the contending parties, and to give precedence to him who ought to have it. And though the seats are built and repaired at the charge of the parish; and the churchwardens should prescribe, that, by reason thereof, they have used to dispose them to such persons as they thought fit, yet since of common right the ordinary has the disposal thereof, and by the same right the parishioners ought to repair them, therefore such prescription shall not be allowed against his jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction extends only to placing or displacing the inhabitants of the parish; for the ordinary cannot grant a seat to a man and his heirs, because a seat in the church properly belongs to some house in the parish, and not to the person, but as owner of the house; and if such grant should be good to a man and his heirs, they would have the seat, though they lived in another parish, which is very unreasonable, and contrary to the original intention of building seats in churches, which was for the inhabitants of that parish, that they might more conveniently attend the service of the church; and certainly if the bishop cannot make such a grant, no private person can do it, for the reasons before mentioned. But where there is no contention, and the ordinary does not interpose, because there is no complaint, there the parson and churchwardens have power to place the parishioners in seats; and in some places the churchwardens alone have that power by custom, as in London. If a seat is built in the body of the church, without the consent of the bishop, the churchwardens may pull it down, because it was set up by a private person without the licence of the ordinary; but it hath been held, that if in removing such seat they cut the timber, or break it, an action of trespa lies against them. This, like many other cases reported by Mr. Noy, is not law: for the freehold of the church being in the incumbent, when the person has fixed a seat to it, it is then become parcel of his freehold, and consequently the right is in him, so that the breaking the timber could not be prejudicial to the other, because he had no legal right to the materials after they were fixed to the freehold. And because seats in the body of the church are to be disposed by the parson and churchwardens, therefore it was formerly held that a man cannot prescribe for a seat there; and yet he might prescribe for the upper part of a seat there. But now the law is settled as to this matter, viz. that one may prescribe for a seat in the body of the church, setting forth that he is seised of an ancient house, ., and that he and all those whose estate he hath therein, have, time out of mind, used and had a seat in the body of the church for themselves and their families, as belonging to the said house, and that they repaired the said seat; and the reason why he must allege that he repaired it is, because the freehold being in the parson, there must be some special cause shown for such a prescription; but as to this matter the court distinguished between an action on the case brought against a disturber and a suggestion for a prohibition: for in the first case you need not allege that you repair, because the action is brought against a wrong-doer; but upon a suggestion for a prohibition it must be alleged that you repair, because otherwise you shall not divest the ordinary of that right which properly belongs to him. Tenants in common cannot make a joint prescription to a seat in a church, but they may prescribe severally; and if they should bring an action jointly for a disturbance, and upon the evidence it should appear they are tenants in common, they must be nonsuited, because such evidence will not maintain the title upon which the action is founded, for though it is a po e ory action, yet since that po e ion must be maintained by a title derived out of a prescription, they must prescribe severally. And in these prescriptions there is not much exactne required; for if an action on the case is brought for disturbing the plaintiff, ., it is not sufficient for him to allege, that he is seised in fee of a me uage, ., (without saying it is an ancient me uage,) and that he, and all those whose estate he hath in the said me uage, had (without saying time out of mind) a seat in the church, which they used to repair as often as there was occasion, ., this is well enough, because the action is founded on a wrong done by one who disturbed him in his po e ion; in which action the plaintiff will recover damages, if the verdict is found for him. It is true he may libel in the spiritual court, and prescribe there for a seat, .; but if the prescription is denied, a prohibition will be granted; if it is not denied, then that court may proceed to sentence, which, if it happen to be against the prescription, in such case also a prohibition will lie, because the suit being upon a prescription, the proceedings in it were coram non judice in that court; but this seems unreasonable, for it can be only to discharge the person of the costs which he ought to pay. As to seats in aisles of churches, the law is, that if a man has a house in a parish, and a seat in the aisle of the church which he has repaired at his own charge, he shall not be dispo e ed by a bishop: if he should, he may have a prohibition, because it shall be intended to be built by his ancestors, with the consent of parson, patron, and ordinary, and appropriated by them to his and their use; and if he is disturbed by any other person in sitting there, he may have an action on the case against him, but then he must prove that he repaired it: and so it was adjudged between Dawtree and Dee, for seats in a little chapel in the north part of the chancel of Pet worth, in Su ex; for though no man can tell the true reason of prescriptions, yet some probable reason must be alleged to gain such a peculiar right, and none is more probable than repairing it. And this will entitle a man to a seat in an aisle, though he lives in another parish; and therefore, where the plaintiff set forth that he had an ancient me uage in the parish of H., and that he and all those whose estate he had in the said house, had a seat in the aisle in the parish church of B.; this is a good prescription for a seat in the aisle, because he or they might build or repair it, though it is not a good prescription to have a seat in nave ecclesiæ of another parish. As to the chancel, the ordinary hath no authority to place any one there, for that is the freehold of the rector; and so is the church; but he repairs the one, but not the other, and it is for this reason that an impropriator hath the chief seat in the chancel. But yet a man may prescribe to have a seat here, as belonging to ancient me uage. So much for the laws of pews: the history of their gradual introduction into churches seems to be as follows:— The first mention that we find made of a reading pew is in Bishop Park hurst’s Articles of Visitation for his diocese of Norwich, (1596,) where it is ordered, “That in great churches, where all the people cannot conveniently hear the minister, the churchwardens and others, to whom the charge doth belong, shall provide and support a decent and convenient seat in the body of the church, where the said minister may sit or stand, and say the whole of the Divine service, that all the congregation may hear and be edified therewith; and that in smaller churches there be some convenient seat outside the chancel door, for that purpose.” Before this time, the appointed place for the priest was in the choir, or, as appointed in the Second Book of King Edward, in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best hear, without any note of the provision of a pew, or any mention of “a little tabernacle of wainscot, provided for the purpose.” The first authority for the setting up of reading desks in all our churches, is the canon of 1603. The earliest pew for the use of the congregation remaining, whose age is determined by the appearance of a date, is in the north aisle of Geddington St. Mary, North amp tons hire, and has the following inscription: Churchwardens , William Thorn, John Wilkie, Minister , Thomas Jones, 1602. Another pew occurs in the same church, dated 1604. From this time till the episcopate of Wren, bishop of Here ford, pews seem to have become more universal, and only then to have found their deserved rebuke. Among other questions in his several articles of visitation we find the following: “Are all the seats and pews so ordered, that they which are in them may kneel down in time of prayer, and have their faces up to the holy table?” “Are there any privy closets or close pews in your church? Are any pews so loftily made, that they do any way hinder the prospect of the church or chancel, so that they which be in them are hidden from the face of the congregation?” The last question points at another objection to pews, besides their destructive effect on the interior of a church. They seem to have originated with the Puritans, and to have been intended to conceal the persons sitting in them, that they might, without conviction, disobey the rubrics and canons, providing for a decent deportment during Divine service. The injunctions especially avoided under cover of pews, were the order to bow at the name of Jesus , and the rule to stand at the Gloria Patri . It would, however, be equally absurd and unjust to apply such remarks to the present times; nor shall we offer any reasons against pews instead of open benches, except that they destroy the ecclesiastical character of a church, that they encourage pride, that they make a distinction where no distinction ought to exist, and that they must be erected at a lo of 20 per cent. of church accommodation.—See the Cambridge Camden Society’s History of Pews .