within those walls consecrated to religion. Contrast this with London. Your neighbours there are connected by no sort of social tie with yourself, a large class of them are perfectly inaccessible, and do not want any connexion with you, except in the way of trade or employment. The few children, in proportion to the parish, whom you may know in the school, are isolated children, affording but a slender link between the clerical or lay visitor of the school, and the parents; while the lanes and alleys are inhabited not exclusively by that class of poor, over whom the necessary habits of industry are some check, but perhaps by those who are the very refuse of the whole country, who live as ministering spirits to the vices and luxury of others, and who taint the whole neighbourhood and the whole condition of poverty with a ban of exclusion from all intercourse with their respectable rich neighbours.

Under the sanction, then, of Acts of Parliament regulating the affairs of 'the Established Church,' it is no wonder that the church going population of London are altogether associated with pew rents. The practical desertion of the poor from church was not their fault, they may say; all they wish is that they may go to church quietly. Satisfying any scruples about the theoretical poor, who ought to be in the house of God, by looking at the word 'free' in some corners near the door as they enter, they shrug their shoulders, (or, if ladies, wave their dresses,) walk up in stately independence to their pew, and after well securing the latch of the door and repeating a short litany to the name of their hatter, are prepared to hear divine service,' with the honest consciousness that they have paid beforehand for the privilege, and that the balance of account is always in their own favour. Such is the way of the London world, though, of course, with exceptions; and for this system were the greater number of churches expressly built. The Clergy depend on pew-rents, and therefore ex officio are their advocates, or are perhaps helpless parties in what they do not like, but are obliged to endure. Now this would be all very well, if the church thus built only professed to be the private chapel of certain individuals who club together, and, like Micah, hire a Levite of the Establishment to be their priest, with the ephod, teraphim, and graven image of pulpit hangings, altar cushions, and all the paraphernalia of a neat church, and who give him victuals in the shape of an occasional invitation to dinner, and a suit of apparel, represented by a black gown from the ladies, in testimony of their esteem, and also ten shekels of silver in the form of pew rent. In this case we might excuse one church, thinking that another would supply the obvious deficiency in accommodating the poor. But the case is quite different when

these churches are meant to have, and in a sense have, a parochial territorial charge, and represent the mother Church, in all its advantages, to those within certain limits. Now in the present state of feeling which a London Clergyman finds among the poor of a parish, has he any hope of drawing them to such a church, when all the force of habit is against going at all? does he not feel it an unreal invitation, because he cannot ask them on such terms as he feels that the services of his church ought to receive them? It was surely in the first instance a rash departure from the ancient system of our Church-that by which the land was spread over with noble buildings and ample endowments-to allow the miserable substitute of pew rents to be the means on which to extend our Church to an increased population; and experience now shows, that however it may have benefited one class, yet that the poor are not included in such a system, as they were in the more ecclesiastical type; in fact, that such a church is not in any practical sense a territorial centre of the Church Catholic for the district allotted to it, in the manner which a country parish is clearly seen to be. The very principle of uniformity should have prompted the building of new churches under the same principle as the old, especially when this country owes so much to her parochial system; but experience now most amply proves, that our forefathers were wiser than this generation in such things, or, which is more to the point, were more liberal; for Providence ordains that the Church's best system shall not be one which cost her members nothing: she flourishes best on the practice of her highest virtues, on chivalrous self-denial and bountiful munificence.

The evil of pew rents is not, however, confined to the class who are altogether excluded by them; there are many whose notions of religious service altogether are much injured by the trickery and underhand work resulting from the whole system, especially among those who are ashamed of going to free seats, and are unwilling or unable to pay rent. On this point we have received the following communication :-

In the new churches, not endowed, the question of open seats cannot be severed from the question of pew rents. It is to be remembered that in London there is a large class who are not poor (i. e. recipients of alms) who yet cannot pay pew rents, and to drive whom into benches distinguished as "free," is to drive them from church; while, if the contribution to the maintenance of the church were voluntary, by a weekly or monthly collection, they would contribute more in proportion to their means than those do who now rent pews. Pew renting is a matter of business, and is treated as such. It is thought a proper economy to consider how few seats need be rented. In a family of four or five, it is thought sufficient to take two or three seats, as one will most probably be absent from church, and there is a certainty of some other vacant place in the same or a near pew, "and so we can manage." Others, yet more economical, rent no seats,

but by a liberal gratuity to the attendants, secure the seats of absentees. These things are done by people, who, if appealed to to maintain divine service, would treat the matter in a different spirit. Others, ashamed to occupy seats for which rents are asked which they cannot pay, wander from church to church, making a rule to themselves not to be at one church above once in a month, or two or three times successively. Great laxness naturally follows, or some cheap seat at a dissenting chapel attracts them. I cannot but think that, as a general rule, as liberal a provision would be made by voluntary offerings as by pew rents; but where the Clergy have not confidence enough to rely on their people in this manner, some proper sum might be fixed upon and raised by subscription through the district, on the personal application of a lay committee. Of course there is a want of independence in the clergyman where the provision is so obtained, but there must be as great a want or greater where it is obtained by pew rents.'

The present system of pew rents, with the exclusive congregations they foster, has a doctrinal evil attending it as well as being a breach of Christian morals, and especially so where the church has a district allotted to it, and thus is entrusted with the territorial charge of all members of the Church resident therein. A church thus built seems to be founded on the business-like theory, that the pew renters are the parish, and that admission to the services of the Church, except under very humiliating circumstances, is in their hands. Now, in an abstract point of view, Christians have a right to meet together and shut the doors against strangers, but this is on the supposition that the excluded persons are heathen. To shut any persons out from the full equality of Christian worship is a kind of excommunication, and is felt to be so. Yet the sacraments and ordinances of the Church are administered to this excluded class; they are in such things esteemed Churchmen; they are baptized, confirmed, married, &c., by the Church, and yet the worship of the Church is not open to them with like freedom that her sacraments are afforded. The result of which must be to make such ordinances degenerate in their minds; for an inner circle is seen to exist, of persons far more privileged than the reception of Church ordinances of itself implies; whereas all practical ideas of excommunication from the body of the church, ought to be connected with the reception or non-reception of those ordinances. To some extent this danger applies to other evils in our Church, but it admits of most clear demonstration with regard to pew rents. It seems altogether unchristian to allow any practical exclusion of those whom the true discipline of the Church admits to be her own children, nay, territorially dependent on that very Church with its Clergy. The discipline of the Church is here sunk in consideration of mammon, and her exclusion is not sacramental, but pecuniary.

But those churches would seem to require special notice

where a better system has been tried; where great sacrifices have been made to establish a more ecclesiastical type of Church extension. It is difficult to bring such churches forward in proof of any particular principle which forms part of their system, for many other questions are involved in their general working. S. Barnabas, for instance, S. Andrews, Well Street, or S. Mary Magdalene, are in a peculiar position, and whether right or wrong in what they do, they are obviously not a fair test of all points connected with open seats, though, as to the fact of congregations assembling in them quietly and orderly, they are eminent instances. A few churches only can indeed never be proper examples of any general principle in a place like London, and for this reason: they are filled not with a true parochial congregation, but with persons who from preference to the system there carried out, or even from curiosity, go to them, and prevent any quiet working of the Church into its own parishioners. This is not the fault of the Clergy nor of the system; for, suppose the system good, and generally adopted, there would be no motive for individuals to leave their own district, for they would have the same at home. Then, again, the question of open seats is at present involved in so many other points of theology, that with them its merits are only as yet appreciated by that class which takes general interest in Church questions of the day. Among the poor those few churches are not extensively known or distinguished from their general idea of all other churches, because the Church question, as a whole, has not yet interested them; moreover, their previous conceptions of the church as a place for rich people, must necessarily be kept up, against all effort of the Clergy to the contrary, by the numbers of rich people who flock into them and fill them. This is a necessary state of things, and has its uses; but such churches will for some time labour under the difficulty of being models and examples of certain principles, rather than being quietly let alone to work their own way as churches of a territorial division in the Church Catholic. Yet, in spite of this peculiar difficulty in such churches as we have mentioned, no one can have attended them without perceiving a far different character in the congregation to what is seen in a closely pewed metropolitan church. There is a congregational brotherly freedom, which makes a stranger feel at home and at rest. In the case of S. Andrew's, we fear that the necessity of supporting their exquisite choir, has rather kept out the considerations we are now chiefly advocating, and that there have been many concessions towards the pew-renting system; but so it must ever be, for the mind of man is not all-comprehensive; by developing one principle, the mind loses sight of another; or

rather, when bent on one object, any difficulties which present themselves assume the aspect of something to be got rid of at any risk; if money is wanted, money must be got. The principle of free and open churches has, in the other cases, however, taken a firm root, which we trust will not be torn up under any trials or temptations. The non-parochial character of such congregations must be regretted, but is no reason for altering the system; the fault lies in other churches not following their example, rather in their not conforming to the too common practice of pew rents, with all their contaminating evils.

The question of pew rents assumed last year a more offensive aspect than ever, because there was danger of its being engrafted into our Church more inextricably than at any previous time. Various schemes for Church extension among the poor have been suggested, but last year, as our readers will probably remember, the plan of very low pew rents in churches, even for sittings that had been guaranteed free for ever, and also the plan of churches specially for the poor, was hit upon, and provisions for the former were very nearly being introduced into the Church Building Amendment Act of the session. Luckily, however, this was warded off, thanks to those Churchmen who are on the alert for such things. We extract a useful letter from the Guardian, with its signature attached to it, which was written while this was in discussion :

THE CHURCH AND THE POOR.

'To the Editor of the Guardian.

'SIR,-I would most earnestly call the attention of every Churchman and friend of the poor to those clauses in what is called "the Church Building Amendment Act," now before parliament, and which would impose a rental upon free sittings-upon those seats which were given to the poor for ever, and which are therefore their own.

The poor, it is said, prefer paying a small sum, in order that they may ensure for themselves a sitting.-I deny it. There are amongst churchgoers some persons so very poor, that they cannot spare, from their necessities, any the very smallest sum in addition to their present outgoings; the education of their children, or their continuance in a clothing club, is often prevented by the onus of a weekly penny.

Pews

The evils of the pew system have been again and again exposed. have, in many cases, cast out the poor from our churches, and have thereby caused ignorance and schism; they induce irreverence-they lead to hatred and uncharitableness amongst neighbours.

I may be told that a revival of pews is not contemplated by this bill. But what will be the result? A bench will be appropriated for an annual payment to a family-not necessarily to a poor family; what will then follow to make it exclusive? a door-perhaps, a lock to the door-the front and back raised for privacy? Have we not here a legitimate pew? The last words uttered by the late Bishop Stanley in my hearing were these: "If live six years, I do not believe there will be a pew in my diocese." How little did he contemplate that, three years only after he spoke, a bill