light contrivances, with modern spring latches, made in such a manner as to show that they do not altogether harmonize with the rest, but are of a temporary nature. Far better, however, is it to have no doors at all; and in that respect, as well as in all others, let architecture be made expressive of its congenial ideas, and not be introduced as an unmeaning appendage to something quite different from its natural character.

We have implied that there seems to have been a slight pause in the pew agitation during the last few years. It is perhaps well that there should have been time to see how a practical subject of such a nature operates of its own force, unfostered by any unnatural agitation. At the first start of the Church movement, there was a justice so obvious in this department of its work, that many took it up kindly without reference to any other principle connected with it. It stood on its own merits, and produced an amazing change in more churches than is generally imagined, especially in rural districts. Since that, however, it has shared the odium of many other popular cries, and has been forced into doing so for selfish purposes. The cry of popery is a very convenient method of exciting a prejudice against anything whatever to which an individual has had a previous antipathy as being contrary to his own interests.

In

Having now considered the present state of the pew question as an historical subject up to within the last few years, we are anxious, in the next place, to draw attention to the actual working of open seats where they have been adopted. doing this we have had recourse to the experience of several persons who have kindly aided us according to their several opportunities. The time required for collecting any great mass of evidence, together with the fact that an anonymous writer in a review has no claim to expect much trouble in his behalf, or much confidence from influential persons, must be our apology for not having a great show of statistics to offer. Many with whom we have corresponded have kindly volunteered to send their experience, but, from the press of other matters, and the difficulty perhaps which some feel in compressing a large and rather indefinite subject, we have not yet received their communications. We are, however, unwilling to defer the subject, and with our best thanks for the kind intentions of those for whom we are unable to wait, with apologies also for not so doing, we shall turn at once to those communications which have been so promptly forwarded. For these we express our sincerest gratitude to the writers, trusting that the use we are about to make of them will be in accordance with their wishes. We shall introduce no names, except, occasionally, those of places where the information afforded is free and open to all.

The plan we have adopted has been to forward a list of heads. comprising such advantages as might be expected to result from open seats, in order to elicit confirmatory remarks or otherwise. It is fair to state that we have received answers of an unfavourable nature as well as the reverse; but where this has occurred, we have only been thereby reminded that the pew question does not stand alone, but that it is involved in many other kindred reforms without which the freedom of churches cannot effectually operate, as for instance, where it is complained that open seats do not bring in money so readily as pews. This we do not dispute, but as it is only the particular question of seats we have now to examine, we must concede, as indeed we have before done, that where there are no endowments and a clergyman is unable to run great risks, the necessity of the case must swamp the benefit we now advocate. Again, where open churches fail to attract the poor, we must not at once come to the conclusion that they are an unimportant element in the reformation of religious habits in those classes; for the services of the Church also require more adaptation to their powers and convenience than is generally the case before we can hope that they will be attracted, especially if we bear in mind the strength of habit, and the entire absence for many generations of any true popular feeling in large towns of the holiness of consecrated places.

We propose in the first place to lay before our readers each head, under which we endeavoured to elicit the advantages of open seats, with such direct testimony as we have already obtained to that particular proposition, reserving more general and unclassified remarks to follow after.

Our first proposition was as follows:

That open seats, even if appropriated, are more easily apportioned to the actual and varying wants of each household, and occasion less waste of room than is found by experience to be the case in the old pew system; and even where room is no object, enable the congregation to be more closely gathered together in the best parts of the church.'

The lay author of a very widely circulated and interesting little work, on the subject generally of reverence due to holy places, to whose courtesy we are greatly indebted, having paid much practical attention to church seats, both before writing that work, which was some years ago, and also since, now says,

My views as to the appropriation of seats, since that work was written, are somewhat changed. From experience, I doubt whether any appropriation, however restricted, is desirable, or at all needful.'

The active and laborious clergyman of a large sea-port district, where a handsome new church has lately been built, thus gives his experience:

The seats in my church are all free, though by common consent persons who are in the habit of attending regularly find their way without molestation to their favourite sittings. Not only is room saved by this arrangement, but gas and trouble in cleaning, no unimportant items in churches where service is celebrated daily, as here. On ordinary week-day evenings we only light six burners, and on festivals, when there is a sermon, eight, and those in the best part of the church, so that the congregation is more closely gathered together. I have never found any difficulty in the way of the congregation seating themselves from the seats being open.'

To vary the scene we now turn to the testimony of a rector in a small rural parish of Wiltshire, in which the church has within the last few years been rebuilt with very great care as to all internal fittings. He thus writes in answer to our first proposition:

I see the truth of this every Sunday. Three seats in my church (for special reasons) have doors-low doors, it is true, but still doors. They are appropriated to three distinct families. One is constructed to hold seven persons, the others four each. In a morning, the average attendance in the three seats is five; in the afternoon, two. But though they are only allotted seats, held neither by faculty nor prescription, and the vacancies might therefore legally be occupied by other parties in case of stress of room, the doors appear to form an insuperable obstacle; and I see people crowded in other parts of the church, five into seats only constructed for four, while there is room to spare here. We have three other allotted seats without doors, which are not liable to this abuse to anything like the same extent; though certainly, the fact that they are allotted, is not without its deterring influence even here.'

The Incumbent of a country town, with a noble church lately restored from the worst abuses of the old system, under this head says:

:

'There is certainly less waste of room with open seats than in the old square pew system; and there is a greater disposition, I think, to be accommodating to strangers.'

From the Clergyman of a new church in the suburb of a cathedral city, we thus hear:—

There can be no doubt of the saving of room effected by the adoption of open seats; the poor, instead of being huddled into galleries, in the side aisles, and under the organ, may be thus placed in a favourable position to hear and see.'

A Clergyman of great influence, both from his position in the Church and in society, a most judicious observer of all that passes around him, and who has three churches in his parish, thus confirms this first proposition:

There can be no doubt that open seats, if appropriated, occasion less waste of room, and enable the congregation to gather together more closely. The advantage of this is great on week-days and Saints'-days.'

We heard, personally, from the Vicar of a country town, that he had found the truth of this by most vivid contrast in his church between the state of things before a late restoration and

since. He managed with some difficulty to avoid having doors erected, and finally prevailed, on the ground of saving money which might be devoted to a new heating apparatus. All are now well satisfied, the body of the church is fairly and evenly filled, though, from the strictness of the appropriating system, and the great number of the middle classes in the place, the poor were not benefited as he could have wished.

We add to the present division of our subject by the testimony of a layman, whose knowledge of different parts of the country, as a tourist and otherwise, and whose interest in the subject, together with a lively manner of narration, will doubtless make his communication very acceptable to our readers, especially when they bear in mind that the coming extract is but one of several which will be introduced under their proper headings:

By

'So far as I have had experience of churches containing open seats, I can bear explicit testimony to the truth of this first proposition,—so far as regards open seats generally, for I do not know many instances in which the open seats are appropriated; but these few are in no respects exceptions to the general rule. Weybridge, Surrey, is one of these. In the old church, where there were the old high pews, the congregation in the week were scattered here and there over the church, each one in his own pew; in the new church,-built where the old one, a wretched structure, was pulled down,—the seats are appropriated, but open, and the congregation now are "closely packed together in the best parts of the church.' means of the open seats, two great family pews were got rid of, one always empty, belonging to an extinct family; the second almost always empty, and never nearly full. Thus a great saving of room was effected, as no seats answering to these are found in the new church. The same remarks will apply to Thorpe Church in Surrey, where a pew that would hold sixteen was tenanted by one lady only, whose servants on one occasion actually left the church, not being able to find room elsewhere. In the same church there was a single pew which filled up nearly the whole of the south transept: when the church was arranged with open seats, this was removed, and four or five seats substituted, holding on the whole about twenty persons. In this church, also, the open seats were appropriated. In S. Mary's church, Kidderminster, there are a few appropriated open seats, which are found far preferable to the old pews, and many unappropriated. The practical advantage of these over the high pews, as collecting the congregation together, is clearly manifested in this church; for whenever any persons in possession of pews happen to attend the daily service, they resort to their pews in all parts of the church, whereas the rest of the congregation are gathered into one place. This will, probably, not be applicable to future times, as all of the pews remaining in the church are at this time either actually removed, or immediately to be so. In the mother church of a parish in Wiltshire there is a "private aisle" blocked up by a very large pew thrown across the arch, which fills up nearly half of the aisle, and makes the rest of it utterly inaccessible. This pew, when it is not kept locked, is sometimes occupied by the page belonging to a lady's household in the parish, who was placed there originally for the purpose of keeping out another family who wanted to use it. The whole aisle is therefore useless. Another large pew is empty regularly for half the year. This one would hold about twelve or fourteen persons. Although

on account of the prevalence of dissent in this parish, the church is unfortunately by no means straitened in room, the fact of the waste is equally undeniable. A few appropriated, and a good number of unappropriated open seats exist, and the effect of these is similar to that which I have mentioned with respect to Kidderminster. At Shepperton, in Middlesex, before the removal of the great pews, which was about seven years ago, evils of a similar nature abounded. The church is but small, certainly not larger than the parish requires, (especially as Shepperton is one of those few places in which there is not one dissenter ;) indeed, the Rector would be glad to enlarge it if he could, and yet under the old system, fully onethird of the length on one side was swallowed up by two pews of unusual magnitude. In the larger of these two only two persons generally sat; occasionally there were others, but it was seldom or never anything like full. There were other pews which occupied far more of the church than was justified by the size of the households of the occupiers. Now these evils are removed, and the new seats, though to a considerable extent appropriated, from the circumstance of having low small doors, not in strictness open seats, are not the cause of any waste of room, or at the worst of very little.

With respect to the extent of saving in room attained by the substitution of open seats for old pews, I cannot speak decidedly, not having examined a sufficient number of instances; but leaving out of the question those which are generally seated in an omnibus fashion, i. e. on both the long sides, and at least one of the short ones, I should think that the gain would be fully equal to one in six, probably rather more than less, taking the average width of both pews and open seats. Of course, in reseating any ordinary church, the proportion of gain over the whole area would probably be considerably more than this, as there would almost certainly be some one or more pews of more imposing dimensions than I have allowed for; one in five would be more near the mark.'

One case mentioned in this communication would seem not legitimately to further our argument, inasmuch as there are doors; we have not, however, excluded it, as in the contrast between the old and the new system, the present advantages are obviously derived from what is an approach to open pews, though we should have preferred seeing that principle literally and boldly developed.

Our second proposition was as follows:

2d. That open seats, not appropriated by definite authority, do ultimately admit of a parochial congregation, quietly and orderly arranging themselves for service, without any serious inconvenience or evil results.'

Under this head our correspondents all say much the same thing, agreeing that there is no trouble in the arrangement of a congregation in perfectly open seats. Indeed, if any one fairly inquires whether the open or enclosed part of any particular church, he may be acquainted with, has been the cause of most trouble and ill feeling in the arrangement of a congregation, there is, we think, no doubt that the enclosed part will be found most guilty of misdemeanors. One whom we have before quoted, says: In the free seats, I find the people almost always occupying the same place without confusion, and, as far as I