The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-29 00:00:00

TIIE PEW SYSTEM.

WE allow, without reluctance, Mr. LINDSAY to
take a rather large share of our columns to-day ;
and we do this the more fully to assure him of
our sympathy with his general design. But we
read his letter with sonic astonishment to find
how a man so sincere and earnest can yet blink
the main difficulty of the case.
We had remarked, that one London parish of
12,000 people adjoined another London parish of
20,000 ; and the people of the two parishes went'
to that church of the two which they preferred,
while the churchwardens could not possibly
know the persons of one-half of the 32,000. Now

this ;
the n3tice he-takes of it is to say, " Strangers
" are those who intrude into churches which do
"not belong to the parish wherein they live :
" these, of course, the churchwardens have power
" to exclude."

Yes, they may have power, legally and theo-
retically ; but what power have they practically ?
None at all. What churchwarden of St. Mar-
tin's-in-the-Fields, or St. James's, Piccadilly,
could pretend to know even one-tenth of the
parishioners?

Mr. LINDSAY next points to five special cases,
in all of which, he says, the open-seat system has
had " rapid success." But surely Mr. L. must
know full well that these churches named by him
are not crowded by the parishioners, but chiefly
by non-parishioners. We speak of one of them
with which we are well acquainted, and we assert,
without hesitation, that four-fifths of the regular
attendants are not parishioners, but come from
other districts. how, then, can the success of
such cases as these prove anything in favour of
opening every church to all the parishioners P
Clear St. Andrew's in Wells-street next Sunday
morning of all who are not parishioners, and the
church would be left with less than half a con-
gregation.

Corresponblutt.
THE PEW SYSTEM.
TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS."
Sir,—l have read with much interest your article
on the pew system, which appeared in your impres-
sion of the 15th inst. In the name of the " General
Committee on the Pew System," I would thank you
for your cordial declaration that the object we have
in view has your " warmest sympathy," and that it
" shall have the utmost support" you can give it.
But, however, you add, that while thus speaking,
" unreservedly and without hesitation, of the object
itself, we must rest rve ourselves as to some of the
details." The point which you object to is, that "all
appropriation of seats, whether formal or tacit, shall
be abandoned, and every corner feel himself free to
take any place in a church which he may find
vacant." Now, this is the very fundamental principle
of our association, and I confess I do not perceive
how you can sympathize with the object we have in
view, or how you can lend us your powerful support,
unless you are prepared to accept it with all its con-
sequences. I will, with your permission, lay down
four propositions, as containing four great principles
on which our association is based, and which are,
believe, founded on reason, and even assented to,
though not carried out in practice, by society at
large ; and then, after making a few remarks on them,
I will proceed to reply to your objections
I. 'lhat all parish churches are the common pro-
.petty of the people dwelling within the boundaries
of their respective parishes.
2. That, inasmuch as all parish churches are the
common property of all the parishioners, every
person, from the squire to the peasant, has a right to
the free use of his parish chur..:b during the times of
Divine service.
3. That all parishioners have a right to occupy
any seats in their parish church that may happen to
be vacant; and that no person has a right to occupy
more than one seat at a time, during Divine service,
to the exclusion of others.
4. That all persons, while within the walls of their
respective parish churches, are equal in the sight of
God and of the congregation ; and that all, high and
low, rich and poor, have an equal right to the free and
undisturbed use of their parish church, and of any
portion of the same that may be at the time of
Divine service unoccupied.
I do not think that you can possibly object to the
above propositions, for they are perfectly sound in
principle, and in accordance with the law of the
Gospel, and with both the letter and the spirit of the
great common law of England ; and yet there are
some who will refuse to admit the principles con-
tained in these propositions : permit me, for their
benefit, to make the following remarks. We say,
" that all parish churches are the common property
of all the people dwelling within the boundaries of
their respective parishes." This may be proved,
first, from the mere fact that the church is called
the parish church—i.e., the church of the
parishioners ; secondly, from the circumstance that
the incumbent is called the rector or vicar or per-
petual curate of the parish, having spiritual juris-
diction over ell the inhabitants living in the parish ;
thirdly, from the fact that the spirituality of the
parish is entirely supported by the parishioners in
the shape of church rates for the preservation of the
fabric—of tithes, for the maintenance of the parson
—and of offerings, dm., for the support 3f Divine
service. Surely no person, after due refiectiou, can
for one moment doubt the truth that the parish

509
fact damages his whole argument; yet all
.. - .

510

church is the common property of all the pa-
rishioners. If, therefore, the parish church is the
property of all the parishioners, the next proposition
must, of necessity, be sound—viz., " that every
person, from the squire to the peasant, has a right to
the free use of his parish church during the times
of Divine service." For, if the parish church really be.
longs to the people, it necessarily follows that they
have a right to the free use of it, for ali spiritual
purposes.
I now proceed to consider the third and fourth
propositions—" That all the parishioners have a
right to occupy any seats in their parish church that
may happen to be vacant; and that no person has
a right to occupy more than one seat at a time, during
Divine service, to th 3 exclusion of others :" and
" That all persons, while within the walls of the
church, are equal in the sight of God and of the
congregation ; and that all, high and low, rich and
poor, have an equal right to the free and undisturbed
use of their parish church, and of any portion of the
same that may be at the times of Divine service un-
occupied." I would in the first place ask, are the
people (inclusive of all classes) ever, under any
circumstances, on an equality? I would reply that
they are frequently so. For example, when they
meet on a railway platform they are, so far as social
position is concerned, on a perfect equality. There
is, indeed, a money distinction, but nothing more.
The humble mechanic who has made a fortune may
aspire to a first-class place, and even an "ostler,"
if he had the means, might if he chose " seat him-
self by the side of the earl"; and the "frequenter
of the Saloons " and the " dashing blade " of the
"swell-mob" fraternity may, whenever it may please
those disreputable members of society, annoy by
their presence in the railway carriage the fair ladies
of " Belgravia." Again, in places of public amuse-
ment, such as the Crystal Palace, the Polytechnic,
&c., all persons who have once been permitted to
enter while there are on an exact equality, having
for the time being equal rights and equal privileges.
This is sufficient to show my meaning, that, under
certain circumstances, all persons are equal, sharing
in common an equality of rights and privileges. But
this is taking low ground. The point I wish to
maintain is, that, within the church, all men, no
matter what their rank or social position may be, are
equal ; and this I think is implied by the Apostle St.
James, in the second chapter of his Epistle. He
commences by exhorting the brethren, saying,
" Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Lord of Glory, with respect of persons." This is
certainly not very clear, but nobody can doubt what
it implies, for in the next versa he blames them for
making any distinction in their assemblies between
" a man with a gold ring," in " goodly apparel," and
a "poor man in vile raiment "; and the Apostle
proceeds to condemn the principle that to the former
may be said, "Sit thou here in a good place" (as in
the comfortable and carefully-inclosed boxes in St.
George's, St. James's, and other fashionable churches
in London and elsewhere), and to the latter, " Stand
thou there, or sit here under my footstool" (as in
the above-named churches, whcre the poor do lite-
rally "sit under the footstool" of the rich, in com-
fortless seats, which seem to have been designed in
order to mark in the most striking manner possible
the immeasurable distance between the rich and the
poor). Can any one, after due consideration of what
is written on this subject, doubt that the poor have
equal rights with the rich in the free use of their
parish church, and that the low as well as the high
have the right to occupy any seat they may choose
that may be vacant during the times at Divine
service ?

But you say that the " total abolition of all restric-
tions, and the recognition of the right of any one to
take any vacant seat, would shock existing prejudices
so severely that Mr. Lindsay may assure himself of
the impossibility of obtaining so great a concession."
I cannot but think that you have unintentionally
misrepresented the true fee,ings of the upper classes.
1 cannot believe that when they go to church they
ever consider who is likely to be seated next them,
or before or behind them. I believe that their minds
are, upon the whole, free from all such irreligious
and vulgar thoughts. Doubtless there are some,
who are known as fine ladies, but they are few in
number, and their prejudices are not worth a mo-
ment's consideration. I cannot but believe that
those kind ladies of all ranks who deem it a privilege
to visit the poor in distress, who do not think they
demean themselves when they sit in the kitchen of
the poor " ostler " or by the bedside of some invalid
in the close and ill-ventilated chamber, will really
object to the " total abolition of all restrictions," and
to the "recognition of the right of any one to take
any vacant seat," even in such churches as St.
George's and others, provided always that the aboli-
tion of the exclusive pew system be really and truly
complete. I confess I have the temerity to believe
that this " concession " is by no means impossible ;
and for this reason, that the upper classes are even
now gradually learning the lesson of humility and
charity, for they (inclusive of many of my own rela-
tives to whom you alluded in your remarks) are to be