L I E) RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UN I VLRSITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 READ BEFOr.E 
 
 Clje ^amtJriUgc ©atntrcn «octft|? 
 
 On ^foNDAY November 22 1841 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING A REPORT PRESENTED 
 TO THE SOCIETY ON THE STATISTICS OF PEWS 
 
 On Moxdav Decembek 7 1841 
 
 " THE CHURCHES OF GOD DID AND DO DETEST THE PROFANEKESS THAT IS 
 AND MAY BE COMMITTED IN CLOSE AND EXALTED PEWS" 
 
 Pocklington's Allare Otristianum p. 26 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AT THE UNirERSITY PRESS 
 
 STEVENSON CAMBRIDGE PARKER OXFORD 
 
 RIVINGTONS LONDON 
 
 MDCCCXLI
 
 **lt tf)tvt comt into pour a00cmijip a man U)it$ a 
 0010 ring, in gooJilp apparel^ antr tfievc tome in aleo 
 
 a poor man in Mt raimtnt, antJ ^t !|ai3p rtesprct unto 
 !)i!ii t^at Ujearetlj t^e gai? clothing, aiitf ^aj? unto fim* 
 Sit tijou ^erc in a gooSj place; antf gap to tijc poor, 
 ^tantJf t^ou tiiert, or 0it f^txe unhtv mg footstool; ate 
 ^t not t^en partial in pour^clijee, antr are iiuomt 
 juS)ge0 of tUl tijougi^ts ? '* 
 
 . uiuc '
 
 THE 
 
 HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 The subject on which the Committee have re- 
 quested me to offer, this evening, some remarks to 
 the Society, is one so interwoven with the internal 
 arrangements of our churches, so directly hearing on 
 the reverent performance of our services, and so power- 
 fully influencing, not the taste alone, hut the devo- 
 tional feelings of our worshippers, that, uninviting as it 
 may at first sight appear, we are in fact deeply in- 
 terested in it. And I was the more willing to lay 
 before you whatever information I may have been able 
 to procure on it, because Pues^ have never yet found 
 an historian. Nor need we wonder at this. For what 
 is the History of Pues, but the history of the in- 
 trusion of human pride, and selfishness, and indolence, 
 into the worship of God ? a painful tale of our down- 
 ward progress from the reformation to the revolution: 
 the view of a constant struggle to make Canterbury 
 approximate to Geneva, to assimilate the church to 
 the conventicle. In all this contest, the introduction 
 of pues, as trifling a thing as it may seem, has exer- 
 
 1 I have ventured, in this word, to return to the original orthography, 
 supported as it also is by analogy; retaining of course, in extracts, the 
 spelling adopted by the author quoted. See below p. C. 
 
 1—2
 
 4 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 cised no small influence for ill ; and an equally power- 
 ful effect for good would follow their extirpation. 
 Hence it is that, from the first moment of our exist- 
 ence as a Society, we have declared an internecine war 
 against them: that we have denounced them as eye- 
 sores and heart-sores : that we have recommended their 
 eradication, in spite of all objections, and at whatever 
 expense : that we have never listened to a plea for 
 the retention of one ; for we knew v/ell that, if we 
 could not destroy them, they would destroy us. 
 
 And herein we have but trodden in the steps of 
 the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the seventeenth 
 century, who sealed the Church's cause with their 
 blood against those who " turned religion into re- 
 bellion, and faith into faction." They not only de- 
 nounced in their writings, in their sermons, in their 
 charges, in their articles, these innovations ; but against 
 more than one of tliem it was made matter of accusa- 
 tion and persecution that he had done so. 
 
 It has been my object, in the following paper, to 
 connect the History of Pues with that of the various 
 changes which our Church has experienced ; and scanty 
 as the notices which I have been able to collect may 
 appear to some, I may assure the Society they have 
 been procured at the expense of no little labour, and 
 with the sacrifice of no little time; and this too in 
 a place which affords every advantage for research. It 
 is evident that all we can now learn of pues must be 
 picked up on the one hand from the personal inspec- 
 tion of churches, and on the other from a careful 
 perusal of visitation articles, injunctions, party-pam-
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 5 
 
 plilets, plays, trials, satires, and publications of a like 
 ephemeral character, only to be found in large and 
 •valuable libraries. I have looked through many hun- 
 dred tracts of this nature in the Publick Library, and 
 have been obliged to consider myself well off if two 
 or three hours' research has helped me to one fresh 
 notice or allusion. The best collection of the kind, 
 not only in Cambridge, but perhaps in England, is 
 to be found in the Library of Trinity College. Some 
 benefactor has, at great cost and trouble, made an in- 
 valuable collection of political and theological pam- 
 phlets, put forth between 1638 and 1648. And these 
 he has for the most part arranged so as to throw 
 mutual light on each other. For example : Does Par- 
 liament publish an ordinance for "seeking the Lord" 
 by a solemn fast on Christmas Day ? Bitterly in 
 the next pamphlet does the Mercurius Kusticus in- 
 veigh against so unheard-of a piece of profanity. Does 
 the great parliamentary bookseller, " Michael Sparke, 
 " living in Green-harbour in the Little Old Bailey," 
 publish " Groana of our Sion ; or a comfort for 
 " afflicted Protestants'" ? Leonard Lichfield of Oxford, 
 and Richard Badger in Cornhill, the Parker and the 
 Rivingtons of their day, hasten to reply to it; the one 
 in ''A Rod for the foole's hachf' the other in " The 
 *' Devil at Geneva'' Such are the sources whence the 
 following pages have been compiled. 
 
 My first business will be to prove that pues were 
 not in use before the Reformation. And here I know 
 that I am opposed by the opinions of some whose 
 judgment on such points has, and that most deserv-
 
 6 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 edly, great weight amongst us. I know also how hard 
 it is to prove a negative. Yet I trust that I shall be 
 able to make the Society think with me on this point 
 at the outset ; because it is one of great importance in 
 the future progress of our enquiry. Let us examine, 
 in the first place, the arguments which my opponents 
 are wont to produce. 
 
 They bring forward the use of the word ime-fellow 
 from Richard III, Act iv. Scene 4 : 
 
 " And makes her pue-Jellow with others moan." 
 From Decker's JVefitivai'd Hoe : 
 
 " Being one day in church she made mone to her 
 'pue-fellowT 
 
 And from the Northtvard Hoe of the same author : 
 " He would make him a pue-fellow with lords." 
 
 Now since they lay so much stress on these 
 passages, I will help them to another, pointed out to 
 me by Archdeacon Hare, himself a determined enemy 
 of pues. It occurs in vol. ii. p. 91 of the new 
 edition of Bishop Andrewes's sermons in the Library 
 of Anglo-Catholick Theology : 
 
 " Look how Esau speaketh, ' I have enough, my 
 brother,' and as his 'pue-fellow here, Anima habes, 
 Soul, thou hast enough," etc. 
 
 The sermon whence this is taken was preached in 
 Lent, 1596; and Richard III. is supposed to have 
 been written in 1591. Now, say the supporters of the 
 theory I am opposing, if the term pue-fellow was then 
 so common as metaphorically to be applied to any close 
 companionship, pues must have been known at a much 
 earlier period.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 Now we will discuss the true meaning of this 
 curious word presently : at present I will only ohserve, 
 that if this argument proves anything it proves too 
 much. Pues are, unfortunately, common enough now- 
 a-days ; yet not so common, but that to call a dear 
 friend a very intimate pue-fellow would be ridiculous 
 in the extreme. Therefore if ^?^^ meant then what it 
 does now, pues must have been in much more general 
 use, and much more generally talked of than now, 
 otherwise the metaphor would have been almost un- 
 intelligible. But that they were so general their 
 warmest advocates will hardly assert. 
 
 This compound then can be brought to prove only 
 thus much ; that the word pue existed before the Re- 
 formation. And this I most willingly allow. 
 
 The Latin word podiurn, whence the Dutch puye, 
 iniijd, and the English pue, are derived, has, as I 
 need not tell the Society, two meanings. The more 
 common signification is the seat in the theatre next 
 the orchestra, or in the amphitheatre next the arena; 
 but it also means a heap of stones. In proof of this 
 latter interpretation, Facciolati quotes a passage from 
 Columella, where that author makes podia synonymous 
 with lapidei suggestus. And, accordingly, the word in 
 English has retained both meanings; though I only 
 know one instance in which it bears the latter. lu 
 Westminster^ as early as the time of King Edward III., 
 was a famous chapel, called The Chapel of Our 
 Lady of the Pue. The title is certainly at first 
 sight puzzling ; but when we read further that this 
 
 Newcourt's Repertorium, s. v.
 
 g THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 clicapel was built in a marshy soil, where huge heaps 
 of stones had to be thrown in before the foundation 
 could be laid, we are naturally led to think of the 
 podium of Columella, and to wish for some authority 
 for deriving the one from the other. And this the 
 Society may not be aware that we have in the pro- 
 vincial word Pod, as applied to the heaps of stones 
 laid by the side of the road for the purpose of mend- 
 ing it. 
 
 I will now bring forward some passages in which 
 the word 2me is used, — not, be it remembered, for a 
 single seat, but, — for a row of seats, or bench'. 
 
 The earliest use of the word with which I have 
 met occurs in a contract of 1458, to make seats, 
 called puying. Here the term is explained for us. 
 
 My next instance is from the parish-accounts of 
 S. Margaret, Westminster^ In 1509 this item occurs, 
 "Of Sir Hugh Vaughan, Knight, for his part of a 
 pew, Qs. Sd." And again, in 1511, "Of Knight the 
 courtier, for his wife's pew, 2*." But there were no 
 pues in our sense of the word in S. Margaret's church 
 till after the fire of London, when it seems to have 
 been pued in imitation of the then newly-erected 
 churches of Sir C. Wren; hence it follows that the 
 pues of Sir Hugh Vaughan and Mistress Knight 
 must have been seats. 
 
 I will bring you down 130 years lower, and the 
 
 ' A curious passage is quoted in the last number (cxxi) of the British 
 Magazine, p. 676, from Piers Ploughman, where pues are mentioned: the 
 context does not prove that the word here means seats, though there can 
 be no doubt that it does. 
 
 ^ Gent. Mag. lxix. p. 838.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 9 
 
 case is the same. In The Life of Dr Peter Heyhjn, 
 hy George Feruoii, 1682, we read, p. 70, that the 
 Dean of Westminster did on the 8th of Fehruary, 
 1636, put in his claim for his seat in a great pue. 
 He was opposed by Dr Hcylyn, on the plea that this 
 pue belonged solely to, and was occupied by the Ca- 
 nons. Now as there never was any pue in the modern 
 sense in that abbey-church, the meaning is evidently 
 this : Dr AVilliams, in addition to his decanal scat, 
 wished to possess himself of one stall in the row of 
 prebendal stalls ; an encroachment as vigorously as suc- 
 cessfully opposed by Dr Heylyn'. 
 
 Advancing four years later, we find the same use 
 of the word. In a scarce tract called The Voice of 
 the Lord in the I'emjde, published in 1640, and 
 giving an account of the strange accidents occasioned 
 by a thunder-storm which happened on the Whit- 
 Sunday of that year, in the parish church of S. An- 
 tony, in Cornwall, near Plymouth, we are told that 
 two women sitting in the Chancel in one pue were 
 overturned. Now how a pue in our sense of the word 
 could be upset, it is not easy to understand : and 
 when we further remember that it was Communion 
 Sunday, and that it has always been usual on that 
 day to have (when there are no stalls) benches in the 
 Chancel, in which part of the church these women 
 were then sitting, we can have no difficulty in under- 
 standing how the word is here to be taken. 
 
 Sixty nine years afterwards, — that is, as late as 
 1709, — we find the word used in the same way. In 
 
 ^ See note A. at the end.
 
 10 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 a pamphlet published that year under the title of 
 The Chernhim with the flam'mg sword, or Hemarhs 
 on Dr Sachevereir s late Sermon hefore the Lord 
 Mayor and Aldermeii^ in S. Paid's, is the following 
 passage : "If your Lordship and Sir Francis had 
 "been breaking down the pulpit, overturning the 
 " pews, brandishing the city-sword, crying out — The 
 " Pret — der ! the Pret — der ! there had been some cause 
 " for alarm." [p. 2.] Who does not see, that the pues 
 here must mean the benches in the middle of the 
 Choir ? For to upset the galilee, which bears some 
 distant resemblance to pues, had been a feat somewhat 
 above the strength of his Lordship and Sir Francis 
 together. 
 
 Thus I have proved to you that for 350 years, 
 pue bore occasionally the sense of bench : and this 
 even, when by the common introduction of square pues, 
 the sense was likely to be lost. It follows then, that 
 unless the advocates of ante-reformation pues have some 
 better argument than the name, their cause can hardly 
 support itself. 
 
 And now to return to the word pue-fellow. In 
 King Lear, which was probably written in 1605, 
 Edgar, as Mad Tom, says, "Who gives any thing to 
 "poor Tom? whom the foul fiend hath led through 
 "fire and through flame; — hath laid knives under 
 "his pillow, and halters in his pueT Now no one, 
 I am sure, can ever have read this passage (which 
 all the commentators pass over sicco pede) without 
 thinking, while taking the last word in the sense of 
 a church-pue, that it was a very strange place for the
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 11 
 
 foul fiend to deposit a halter. We are further to re- 
 member that the whole of Mad Tom's character is a 
 satire on the pretended possession^ of John Darrell and 
 others. In the examination of these wretched crea- 
 tures, we find that knives and halters were said to 
 have been laid under their beds and in their chairs. 
 Here we get near the meaning : but still, as I before 
 observed, pue never meant a chair, but a bench. Now, 
 when we are told that to this day in some parts of 
 England those large moveable seats in alehouses, which 
 have a back both above and below, to keep off the 
 wind, are called pues ; and when we remember that 
 Edgar afterwards says of himself, "Wine loved I deeply, 
 dice dearly," our chain of evidence will be complete ; 
 and we shall have no hesitation in setting down the 
 pue in the above passage as an ale-bench, where a 
 halter might well have been laid ; and pue-fellow will 
 then mean a boon companion, Now our difficulties 
 are solved; for pue having for the most part lost this 
 sense, pue-fellow has of course fallen into disuse. And 
 fond as Bishop Andrewes was of country words, there 
 is no reason why he should not have used this, espe- 
 cially when custom had given it a sense rather wider 
 than its original meaning. 
 
 But of course all arguments whatever must give 
 way to facts. If the advocates for early pues can point 
 out one clear and undisputed instance, where such a 
 thing occurs before the Reformation, it will prove much, 
 though not perhaps so much as they assert.^ There are 
 
 ' See Illust. Mon. Bi-ass. part i. p. 37. 
 ^ See note B. at the end.
 
 ]2 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 instances, however, where pues may be found with Per- 
 pendicular or even Early Decorated work cleverly ve- 
 neered on to their sides ; and it is possible that such 
 may have been mistaken for Perpendicular or Early 
 Decorated pues. 
 
 But, say our opponents, our not finding ancient 
 pues proves nothing against their existence ; because 
 they, like so much other ancient wood-work, may easily 
 have been destroyed. Let us look at the case accord- 
 ing to this hypothesis. There were then two kinds of 
 accommodations for worshippers, — wood-seats and pues. 
 The former fell into disuse ; the latter increased and 
 multiplied. And yet it is the former which are pre- 
 served, and the latter which have perished ! 
 
 Finally, I will just allude, (and only just, since it 
 will form the subject of a future paper) to an objec- 
 tion against all ante-reformation square pues ; the uni- 
 versal custom of praying towards the east, which these 
 square boxes would have rendered a thing impossible. 
 
 Let us, before we consider the use of pues, say a 
 few words on the way in which worshippers were ac- 
 commodated before the Reformation. In Anglo-Saxon 
 churches, and in some of early Norman date, for ex- 
 ample, Compton S. Nicholas, Surrey, there is a stone 
 bench running round the whole of the interior, except 
 the east end. This was probably occupied by the con- 
 gregation ; for there does not appear to have been at 
 that time in our Church so strict a law against the 
 laity, or even women, entering the Chancel as there 
 afterwards was. At least such appears the natural in- 
 ference from the 44th constitution of king Edgar, pub-
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 13 
 
 lished in a.d. 960: "And we ordain that no woman 
 shall approach the Altar while the Mass is being cele- 
 brated." This of course implies that at any other 
 time a woman might do so. Judging from Anglo- 
 Saxon illuminations, the rest of the people sat on low, 
 rude, three-legged stools, placed dispersedly all over 
 the church. And probably no immediate difference 
 was made by the Norman Conquest ; though from that 
 time the introduction of wood-seats appears gradually 
 to have been accomplished. In Bishop Grostete's in- 
 junctions, (1240), it is ordered, that the patron may 
 be indulged with a stall in the Choir. And in the 
 twelfth chapter of a synod at Exeter, holden by Bishop 
 Quivil in the year 1287, we read as follows^ : 
 
 " We have also heard that the parishioners of 
 divers places do oftentimes wrangle about their seats 
 in church, two or more claiming the same seat ; whence 
 arises great scandal to the church, and the divine 
 offices are sore let and hindered: wherefore we decree, 
 that none shall henceforth call any seat in the church 
 his own, save noblemen and patrons ; but he who shall 
 first enter shall take his place where he will." 
 
 The next notice I have found of church-seats oc- 
 curs in the year 1470; when an action being brought 
 about a claim to a particular seat, a consultation was 
 issued to the Bishop of Hereford to take measures in 
 favour of the claimant ; a consultation being an injunc- 
 
 ^ Item audivimus, quod propter sedilia in Ecclesia rixantur niultoties 
 parochiani, duobiis vel pluribus xinum sedile vindicantes : propter quod 
 grave scandalum in ecclesiam oritur ct divinum sspius impeditur officium. 
 
 WiLKINS, I. 128.
 
 14 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 tion to the Ecclesiastical Judge to proceed notwith- 
 standing a previous prohibition. 
 
 And here I may observe, that very little informa- 
 tion is to be gained from the law reports of particular 
 cases like the above. They divide themselves princi- 
 pally into two classes : one, where right of prescription 
 by occupation for forty years is claimed, together with 
 a proof that the seat has been, during that time, kept 
 in repair by the claimant: the other, where the same 
 right is urged, without the latter addition. In the 
 former case judgment has always been given for the 
 claimant ; in the latter, the decision of different au- 
 thorities has been very different ; as a reference to 
 Ayliffe's Par ergon, or Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, will 
 soon evince. 
 
 In descending to the Reformation, it is necessary 
 to remember how different was the then state of our 
 parish-churches from their present condition. There 
 were no pues, as we have seen ; no reading-desk, often 
 no pulpit ; the old Altars for the most part in parish- 
 churches and in all cathedrals remained: for it must 
 always be remembered that these, by the so often and 
 so triumphantly quoted injunction of Queen Elizabeth, 
 were not ordered — only, under certain restrictions, al- 
 lowed — to be removed: in some instances a table stood 
 lengthwise at the east end ; and in others, was brought 
 down into the Chancel or Nave, where even our present 
 rubrick permits it to stand. In this latter case; Matins 
 and Evensong seem to have been read from it ; in the 
 former, I suppose that a lettern was used, being placed 
 where the priest could best be heard.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 15 
 
 I will now endeavour to trace historically the gra- 
 dual intrusion of pue, reading-pue, gallery, and the 
 other encumhrances of modern churches. 
 
 In king Edward's first Prayer Book, the Priest is 
 ordered to be in the choir; but Bucer having declared 
 the order an act of high treason against God, the 
 injunction in the second places him in such place of 
 the church, chapel, or chancel, as the people may best 
 hear. 
 
 In Archbishop Parker's Primary Articles (1559) 
 we find no traces of any innovation in practice. 
 
 Ten years later occurs the first hint of a reading- 
 pue. Bishop Parkhurst, in his Visitation Articles for 
 the diocese of Norwich (1569), orders, 
 
 " That in great churches where all the people can- 
 not conveniently hear their minister, the churchwardens 
 and others, to whom the charge doth belong, shall pro- 
 vide and support a decent and a 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 pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Two years later (1571) the Archbishop of York 
 orders that the Epistle and Gospel be read from the 
 pulpit^ where prayers are wont to be said. 
 
 In Bishop Cox's first set of Articles, enquiry is 
 
 ^ It seems doubtful whether this Avord is here used in the common 
 sense; or whether it refers to the reading-stand, which had probably as 
 yet acquii'cd no distinctive name.
 
 16 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 made about the pulpit, but nothing said of the reading- 
 pue (1573.) 
 
 Archbishop Grindal (1580) by his first question 
 shews that he knew of no such accommodation as a 
 reading-desk. The minister here is simply ordered to 
 turn himself so, and to stand in such place of the 
 Church or Chancel, as the people may best hear. 
 
 Next^ year (1581) we read that a gallery was built 
 by the North door of S. Leonard, Shoreditch. 
 
 It seems that, though as yet unauthorised, the prac- 
 tice of employing a reading-pue was becoming every 
 day more prevalent. For it is distinctly recognised in 
 Harrison's description of England, prefixed to Holin- 
 shed's Chronicle, quoted in the 4th number of our 
 Illustrations of Monumental Brasses (p. 129). " Finally 
 whereas there was wont to be a great partition between 
 the Choir and the body of the church, now it is either 
 small or none at all: and to say the truth, altogether 
 needless, sith the minister saith his service commonly 
 in the body of the church, with his face towards the 
 people, in a little tabernacle of wainscot provided for 
 the purpose." 
 
 Still, the first act by w^hich that innovation was 
 officially sanctioned was the Canon of 1603. 
 
 " It remained for King James," says a writer in 
 the British Magazine-, "who cannot be charged with 
 want of reverence to the Altar, to break the last con- 
 necting link between it and the Daily Prayers. A 
 convocation in the beginning of his reign directed that 
 
 ' Newcourt, Vol. I. S, Leonard. 
 ' Vol. XVI. p. 502.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 17 
 
 *a convenient seat should be made for the minister,' 
 and the sentence naturally concluded, * to read service 
 in.' Thus the desk became a fixture: prayers were 
 read to the people, not prayed with them : and the 
 Altar, though treated with an affectation of respect at 
 Communion-time, ceased to be the place ' where prayer 
 was wont to be made.' Hence tlie attempt to pre- 
 serve its sacredness by decoration only experienced the 
 fate of every attempt at expressing a sentiment no 
 longer felt." 
 
 It must however be remembered, that these early 
 reading-pues faced East as well as West : the enor- 
 mity of a pulpit towering up between the desk and 
 the Altar was not then thouo-ht of. 
 
 The earliest pue I have yet seen^ is just of this 
 date. It occurs in the North Aisle of Geddington S. 
 Mary, Northamptonshire, and bears the following in- 
 scription : 
 
 Churchwardens. William Glover. 
 Jhon Wilkie. 
 
 Minister ThomaS Jones, 1602. 
 
 The formality of inserting these names at length, with 
 the offices borne by the parties mentioned, shews what 
 a novelty a pue was then thought in Northampton- 
 shire. 
 
 There is another pue in the same church inscribed, 
 T. M. M. M. [/'. e. Thomas and Mary Maydwell, who 
 have a brass legend near it] 1604. 
 
 The next year (1605), Archbishop Bancroft put 
 forth his Primary Articles. Enquiry is made about a 
 
 = C. S.
 
 18 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 convenient reading-piie : but no notice taken about 
 other pues : whence we may conclude that Bancroft 
 knew nothing of their existence as yet ; or so thorough 
 a churchman could not have failed to expose them. 
 
 Two years afterwards (1607), we find from one of 
 Noy's reports, that an action was brought against cer- 
 tain Churchwardens for removing a pue, and cutting 
 it in pieces. And judgment was given against them 
 for wantonly destroying it\ 
 
 Still the evil went on increasing. In Kingstone 
 next Lewes, Sussex, is a pue in the Chancel bearing 
 date 1608. 
 
 At this time the fashion prevailed of providing 
 the pues with locks. Bishop Earle says, of the 'she 
 precise hypocrite' : " She knows her own place in hea- 
 ven as well as the pew she has a key to'." 
 
 In I6l6^ a 'fair gallery' was built in the church 
 of S. John, Wapping, with part of the benevolence: 
 of the mariners of the Royal James. 
 
 In 1620', S. Mary-le-bow had square pues intro- 
 duced into the Nave. This Church is a peculiar of 
 
 ■^ I say nothing here of the loss of room occasioned by the introduc- 
 tion of pues, because it forms the subject of the Appendix to this paper: 
 in which it is clearly shewn, that manage them as we will, by making 
 them as narrow and inconvenient as possible, we must lose twenty per 
 CENT, by their adoption in comparison with the room afforded by wood 
 seats. I would also refer the reader to Archdeacon Hare's Primary 
 Charge to the Archdeaconry of Lewes for some striking remarks as to 
 the increased evil of which pues have been the cause. 
 
 ^ Microcosmography. Ed. 1786, p. 113. 
 
 ^ Newcourt, Vol. I. S. John's. 
 
 * Newcourt, Vol i. S. Mary.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 19 
 
 Canterbury, and Archbishop Abbott was no enemy to 
 puritanical innovations. 
 
 ^The steeple of S. James, Clerkenwell, falling down 
 in 1623, destroyed, among other things, a gallery over 
 against the pulpit. 
 
 About the year 1624, in the last parliament of 
 King James, the puritans, now making a vigorous ex- 
 ertion on all sides, seem first to have discovered how 
 mighty an agent for their purposes pues might become. 
 In 1626^ we find some intruded on the Chancel of 
 Storrington S. Mary, Sussex : the Calvinian Bishop 
 Carleton being probably too deeply engaged in defend- 
 ing the Synod of Dort, and attacking Dr Montague, 
 to give his attention to this subjeet. Yet it is re- 
 markable that Walter Mattock", the then rector, was 
 afterwards a Confessor for the Church: whence we 
 may perhaps gather how few even of the orthodox 
 clergy appear at this time to have foreseen the evil 
 which they were thus sanctioning. 
 
 In the next year (1627), at Ashwell S. Mary, 
 Herts, we find, and it is my earliest example**, a 
 clerk's pue built. This village, it may be observed, is 
 situated on the very borders of the Diocese ; for Dr 
 Mountain, who then filled the Chair of London, was 
 not the Prelate to allow, had he known it, of such 
 an innovation. 
 
 Wimborne Minster, in Dorsetshire, was in 1628 
 much disfigured with pues. 
 
 * Newcourt, S. James. 
 
 e C.S. ' Walker's Sufferings, p. 312. 
 
 « C.S. 
 
 2 — 2
 
 20 ■ THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 In 1630\ a very costly gallery was built in S. 
 Peter le Poor, Ijondon : and the same year another 
 gallery, with a cross seat for catechising children, was 
 erected in S. Leonard's, Shoreditch. 
 
 ^ There is a pue in Steeple Morden, Cambridge- 
 shire, bearing date 1631. In this year Weever says, 
 *' Many monuments are covered^ with seats or pews, 
 made high and easy for parishioners to sit or sleepe 
 in, a fashion of no long continuance, and worthy of 
 reformation." 
 
 *Next year, 1632, a gallery was built at Gedding- 
 ton, and another by Richard Turner and John JNIorritt 
 in S. Olave, Silver Street. 
 
 ^Clymping, Sussex, has a pue dated 1634. 
 
 Hitherto, all the pues I have mentioned had been 
 single ones, scattered here and there about the church. 
 But in 1634, Bishop's Castle S. John, Salop, was pued 
 throughout : and in the neighbouring parish of Stoke 
 S. Milburga two covered pues, or dovecotes, as they 
 were called, were erected. 
 
 In 1635, the first vigorous opposition was made to 
 pues by Matthew Wren, then Bishop of Hereford : 
 a man whose name will be to all Churchmen a Krij/xa 
 €s aei He might perhaps have been made acquainted 
 with the innovations in his Diocese to which I have 
 just alluded. In his Articles, (iii. 10) he asks, 
 
 " Whether doth any private man or men of his 
 or their own authority erect any pews, or build any 
 
 ^ Newcouut, S. Peter. 
 
 ^ C. S. ^ Fi'm. Mon. 701. See also Gloss. Arch. i. IGl. 
 
 ^ C. S. ' c. s. . • ■
 
 . THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 21 
 
 new seats in your church ? And what pews or seats 
 have been so built? at whose procurement, and by 
 whose authority? And 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 also any kind of seats in the 
 Chancel above the Communion Table ? or on either 
 side up even with it?" 
 
 And again, " Are there any privy closets or close 
 pews in your church ?" (like those, I suppose, which 
 I have just mentioned at Stoke Castle.) "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 consrre- 
 gation ?" 
 
 And in his Articles for i^orwich, put forth the 
 next year, is the following addition : 
 
 " Is the middle alleye of the church, or any of tlie 
 other alleyes or iles, or the body of the Chancel built 
 upon (in any part thereof) in the setting up pews or 
 seats, or for the enlarging of any there adjoining?" 
 About galleries he asks, (iii. 13), 
 *' What galleries are there in your church? How 
 are they placed, or in what part of your church ? 
 When were they built, and by what authority? Is 
 not the church large enough without them to receive 
 all your own parishioners? Is any part of the church 
 hidden or darkened thereby, or any in your parish 
 annoyed or offended by them ?" 
 
 Let us for a moment leave our chronological order, 
 to see what was the fate of these Articles. Nothing
 
 22 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 seems ever to have galled the puritans more than theit 
 appearance at a time when the downfall of the Church 
 was confidently expected by them. That so clear and 
 bold a vindication of original practices should then 
 be put forth, appears equally to have astonished and 
 perplexed the innovators, already anticipating an easy 
 victory : 
 
 ov yap <t>9 (puyrj 
 •jraiav efpv/JLVovv creixvov ' EXkr]ve<i Tore, 
 oXX es yua^j^y opjuwvreg ev\^v^M dpaaei. 
 
 And the revenge taken on them was equally mark- 
 ed. On July 20, 1640, a charge of high crimes and 
 misdemeanours was exhibited by the Commons before 
 the House of Lords against Wren : Sir Thomas Wid- 
 drington conducting the prosecution. Among other 
 charges, one was that he had oppressed many poor 
 parishes by making them, at a vast expense, remove 
 the paes from their churches. The doctrine of Bishop 
 Wren was by the House of Commons declared Armi- 
 nian, and heretical, and himself stripped of all his 
 preferments, and made incapable of holding any other 
 for ever. 
 
 The exertions of Wren, seconded by the autho- 
 rity of Laud, seem for a time to have prevailed; 
 many open wood-seats of this date now existing. I 
 may mention one in Foulmire, in this county, bearing 
 date 1635\ and one at S. Cuthbert's", York, 1637. 
 
 In 1636, I find the word Desk used for the first 
 time, as we now so commonly use it, in the sense of 
 
 ' c.s. . . 2 c^g^
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 23 
 
 reading-pue. This is in a sermon called Profano 
 Mastixy by John Swan, Rector of Duxford S. Peter's, 
 in this county, preached at Sawston, in a visitation of 
 the Archdeacon of Ely. 
 
 Wren being translated to Ely, Montague suc- 
 ceeded him in Norwich. In his primary articles' 
 (1638) he demands: 
 
 "Are the seats and pews built of an uniformity? 
 or do they hinder and encumber their neighbours in 
 hearing God's Word, and performing Divine Service?'* 
 
 With respect to galleries, he asks, (i. 10), 
 
 " Is your church scaffolded any where, or in part ? 
 Do these scaffolds so made annoy any man's seat, or 
 hinder the light of any w^indows in the church?" 
 
 But pues and galleries were now prevailing every 
 where. In a pamphlet entitled, A true relation of 
 those sad and lamentable accidents which happened 
 in and about the parish church of Withycomhe, in 
 the Dai'tmoors, Oct. 21, 1638, we read (p. 7), 
 
 " One Mistress Ditford sitting in the same pew 
 with the minister's wife, was hurt, but the maid sit- 
 ting near the door of the pew had no harm." How- 
 ever the church was not pewed throughout ; for we 
 read, p. 9, " Some seats in the body of the church 
 were turned upside down." 
 
 And in the before-quoted Voice of the Lord, we 
 find (p. 4), that William Sargent, one of the suf- 
 ferers, was kneeling at the east end of the Chancel, 
 in a pue, with his back to the east, and his face 
 to the Holy Table. 
 
 * Reprinted with a Memoir and Notes, Camb. 1841.
 
 24 THE HISTORY OF PEWis 
 
 In a Copy of the Proceedings of some Divines ap" 
 pointed hy the Lords to meet at the Bishop of Lin- 
 colii's, in JVestminster^ among the innovations which 
 they mention in discipline, one is, the demolishing 
 galleries where they have been built, and forbidding 
 the erection of new ones. These divines were Bishop, 
 afterwards Archbishop, AVilliams, Archbishop Ussher, 
 Dr Prideaux, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, Dr 
 Ward, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, Dr Brownrigg, 
 afterwards Bishop of Exeter, Dr Hacket, afterwards 
 Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Dr Featly. 
 
 At this time, however. Bishop Williams bestirred 
 himself against the innovation of pues. For we are told 
 in A Sermon very necessary for the times ^ of conscience^ 
 hy Anthony Cade, B.D. Cambridge, 1639, that he 
 removed the pues from the chapel at Euckden ; sub- 
 stituting in their place wooden seats ; the remaining 
 description of what that great — would we could say 
 good — Prelate did, is very interesting: 
 
 " The cloisters fairly pargetted and beautified with 
 comely copartments and inscriptions of wise counsels 
 and sentences ; the windows enriched with costly pic- 
 tures of Prophets, Apostles, and Holy Fathers ; and 
 beyond all the chapel for God's immediate service most 
 beautifully furnished with new seats, windows. Altar, 
 Bibles, and other sacred books, costly covered, and 
 embossed with silver, and gilt with gold ; candlesticks 
 and other ornaments of bright shining silver, and 
 with stately organs curiously coloured, gilded, and 
 enamelled." 
 
 It appears, if we may believe the Royalist writers,
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 25 
 
 that pues were used at this time by the Puritans for 
 purposes very different from those of devotion. In 
 a play, perhaps written by Brome, the cavalier, and 
 called, if I mistake not, Love's High Court of Com- 
 mission, the lover wishing to obtain a kiss from his 
 mistress, she says, " Fie, sir ! I would have you to 
 know that we are not now in our pew." 
 
 In 1641, Dr Pocklington, already hated by the 
 Puritans for his Sundmj no SabhatJi, published his 
 Altare Chrhtianum. In the second edition of this 
 work, he inserted the following passage, which is not 
 to be found in the first : 
 
 " The practice of piety was then (in the Primi- 
 tive Church) performed in kneeling before their Sa- 
 viour and Redeemer. The stools they had were either 
 none, or none but fallstools, to come and fall down 
 and kneel before the Lord. [This etymology is, I 
 need not say, more pious than correct.] Ambition to 
 step up into the highest rooms and seats, and there 
 to enclose and enthronize themselves, was confined to 
 Pharisaical feasts and synagogues ; holy men and good 
 Christians had no such custom in those times — sought 
 no such state and ease — nor did the Church of God. 
 The Churches of God did and do detest the profane- 
 ness that is and may be committed in close and ex- 
 alted pews." 
 
 This book was licensed by Dr Bray, domestic chap- 
 lain to Archbishop Laud, a man mentioned favourably 
 in a letter written to that holy JMartyr by Dr ]Mon- 
 taguc, v.'hen Bisliop of Chichester. Bat afterwards 
 changing his principles, he wrote A Sermon of the
 
 26 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 Blessed Sacrament, 1641, professedly in answer to 
 Pocklington's Altare Christianum. At p. 52, is the 
 following sentence : " He (Pocklington) saith that close 
 and exalted pews are profane, and were detested by 
 the Church of God. Which is but his foolish and 
 fond conceit.'' 
 
 The end of Pocklington's history is soon told. 
 Feb. 12, 1641, it was ordered by the House of Lords 
 that he should be deprived, his two books publickly 
 burnt by the common hangman, and himself made 
 incapable of preferment, and forbidden to go to court. 
 Soon after, says Walker ^ he died of grief. 
 
 We have seen then that pues were supported by 
 puritans and attacked by churchmen. We must now 
 enquire into the reasons of this fact; for it is a mis- 
 take to suppose that it was only the love of comfort 
 and ease, and a pharisaical desire of separating them- 
 selves from their neighbours, which led the former to 
 uphold, — and only a zeal for the beauty of God's 
 houses which induced the latter to denounce them; 
 besides these more obvious causes, there were others 
 as substantial at work on both sides. 
 
 It must be remembered, that in an age when the 
 Bishops' Injunctions to Churchwardens were so strin- 
 gent, and when a presentment for contumacy involved 
 consequences so serious, that those who were deter- 
 mined on disobeying episcopal authority were at least 
 willing as much as possible to conceal their disobedi- 
 ence. And pues afforded them an excellent method 
 of doing so. 
 
 - Sufferings, p. 136.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 27 
 
 I shall mention four of the principal uses of the 
 Church at which puritans took offence : in all of which 
 high pues would form a very convenient shelter. 
 
 I. Nothing gave more offence to the puritans 
 than the injunction of Queen Elizabeth, — an injunc- 
 tion repeated in our Canons — that "whenever in any 
 lesson, sermon^ or otherwise, the name of Jesus shall 
 be in the church pronounced, due reverence be made 
 of all persons, young and old, with lowness of courtesy 
 and uncovering of the heads of the men-kind, as there- 
 unto doth necessarily belong, and heretofore hath been 
 accustomed." 
 
 The first injunction to this effect occurring after 
 the Reformation, is that of the Synod of S. Asaph, 
 1561. It runs thus : 
 
 " In time of service, read or sung in the church, 
 so often as the name of Jesus, being our Saviour, 
 shall be rehearsed, due reverence shall be made of all 
 persons, young and old." 
 
 During the whole of Queen Elizabeth's reign the 
 point was in dispute : and in spite of the solid answers 
 given by Hooker and Whitgift to the calumniators 
 of this pious custom, they appear rapidly to have 
 gained strength. In I6IO, an elaborate attack was 
 made on it by Henry Jacob, a puritanick minister, 
 under the title of A plain and clear Exposition of the 
 Second Commandment. 
 
 A parochial minister at Oxford, by name Giles 
 Widdowes, having written a defence of the custom, 
 Prynne, in 1630, sent out a pamphlet under the name 
 of Lame Giles his haltings; or a brief survey of
 
 28 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 Giles JVidoivs Confutation of no bowing at the Name 
 of Jesus. From this tract we incidentally gain the 
 information, that daily service was used in at least 
 many of the parish-churches at Oxford. 
 
 Burton followed on the same side ; impiously call- 
 ing his book, Jesu worship. 
 
 From a visitation sermon preached at Brentwood, 
 in Essex, by John Elberow, M. A. before Archbishop 
 Laud, Feb. 28, 1636, and afterwards published with 
 the title of Euodias and Sijnttjche, it would appear 
 that the female part of puritanical congregations were 
 especially obstinate in this matter. 
 
 In a dialogue called Cer^taine Grievances^ by a 
 vehement fanatic, Lewis Hews, we find the following : 
 
 Gentleman. " Why do the Bishops make an idol 
 of the name of Jesus, by causing men to bow their 
 bodies, and to put off their hats whenever it is named? 
 
 ^''Minister. Because they mistake the Word of God, 
 where it is written, * At the name of Jesus every 
 knee shall bow, &c.'" 
 
 The Bishops now interfered with their Articles. 
 In 1641, Edmund Heeves, in his Explanation of the 
 most sacred Catechism of the Church, says, [p. 131], 
 speaking of schismaticks : 
 
 "When as the greater part of the congregation 
 do duly reverence the Lord Jesus, they will express 
 their contempt of the most sacred Church-law in the 
 very face of the congregation, unto the high dishonour 
 of the Lord, and the scandal of all such as are 
 assembled in God's Holy Place. The Holy Father- 
 hood in their Articles which thev set forth for church
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 29: 
 
 officers' use, do divinely admonish hereof: but where are 
 they which have care and zeal to take notice who do 
 their duty, and who not?" And again he says, "But 
 now many men and women have that most holy cus- 
 tom in open defiance, so as it is not meet for men- 
 tion." 
 
 In this same year (1641), Aug. 6, Articles were 
 exhibited against Dr Beale, Master of S. John's Col- 
 lege, in this University, before the House of Commons. 
 The fourth of these was, that at S. Mary's he said it 
 was a sin of damnation not to bow at the name of 
 Jesus. 
 
 However, Parliament thought otherwise ; and little 
 more than a month after taking cognizance of this 
 charge, (Sept. 9, 1641), issued an order that all cor- 
 poral bowing at the Name of Jesus be henceforth for- 
 borne. 
 
 The matter did not, however, stop here. For in 
 the next year we find Sir E. Dering, himself a deter- 
 mined puritan, courageously protesting to the Housed 
 " For my part, I do humbly ask pardon of the House, 
 and thereupon take leave to give you my resolute 
 resolution : I will do bodily reverence to my Saviour, 
 and that upon occasions taken at the mention of His 
 Saving Name Jesus." 
 
 To mention all the ministers against whom this 
 was made matter of accusation, before the Earl of 
 Manchester and the Committee for the Propagation 
 of the Gospel, would be to recapitulate the greater 
 part of Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy. The re- 
 
 ' Spfeches, p. 85.
 
 30 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 mains of the Anglican Church during this gloomy 
 period resolutely persisted in the practice ; and as 
 late as 1653', we find John Allington, afterwards 
 Rector of Leamington Garstang, ejected for saying he 
 would be torn in pieces sooner than give up bowing 
 at the Name of Jesus. 
 
 In 1659 was published, apparently for the first 
 time, a treatise by Fox, the heresiarch of Quakerdom, 
 On Bowing. In this, curiously enough, he seems (for 
 it is not easy to understand his language) to leave the 
 matter indifferent. 
 
 In l66l, the practice, as might naturally be ex-, 
 pected, again prevailed : for the ever mischievous 
 Prynne thought it worth his while, in his Pacific 
 Examination of the Common Prayer-book, to declaim 
 violently against it. 
 
 Bishop Lancy, of Peterborough, in 1662; Arch- 
 bishop Juxon in 1663 ; Bishop Rainbow^ of Carlisle, 
 in 1665 ; Bishop Turner, of Ely, in 1686 ; and even 
 after the Revolution, Bishop Patrick, of Ely, 1692, 
 all enjoin the practice ; since which time I have not 
 found any express order on the subject, though of 
 course the Canon which orders it is still as binding 
 as ever. 
 
 I have dwelt at some length on this point, because 
 I wished you to be aware of the influence it had on 
 the erection of pues. And we shall not now be sur- 
 prised to find, in a copy of Bishop Montague's Ar- 
 ticles, preserved in Trinity College Library, at the 
 side of the question, "Do they ... bend or bow at the 
 
 ^ The Good Samaritan, 1673, p. 25.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 81 
 
 glorious, sacred and sweet name of Jesus?" the fol- 
 lowing note in an old hand, ^^Wee colcle not presente, 
 by reason of if high and close pewes^ 
 
 II. Another thing much objected by the Puritans 
 was the injunction to stand at the Glo?ia Patri. 
 
 The Society may not be aware, that till the Resto- 
 ration the use of our Church was this : durine: the 
 reading of the Psalms, the minister stood while the 
 people sat, the latter however rising at the Doxology. 
 Bastwick, while imprisoned after his censure in 
 Jersey, wrote a most scurrilous pamphlet on this sub- 
 ject, called BustwicUs Litany, wherein he says, (p. 11), 
 "The Churchwardens must therefore first inform about 
 their beggarly rudiments, and for that they have a 
 strict charge given them to take notice about capping, 
 ducking, standing up and kneeling — a plaguy deal of 
 porridge !" 
 
 And Montague, in the next year, asks, (v. 14), 
 " Do they stand in the Doxology against the oppugners 
 of the Trinity, which was repeated in the Primitive 
 Church after every Psalm, and ought to be so in ours?" 
 At the Restoration, the Convocation at York re- 
 commended to that of Canterbury the reintroduction of 
 this practice, and its extension to all the Psalms; and 
 this is the authority for our present practice, as well 
 as for our not rising at the Gloria in the Litany, which 
 was then specially excepted. 
 
 The practice of rising at the Doxology only was, 
 as we are all aware, maintained among ourselves at S. 
 Mary's, till within the present year. Its origin appears 
 to have been quite unknown to those who then inter-
 
 32 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 ested themselves in the question : or we should not have 
 heard the confident assertions that the use was not half 
 a century old : that it was originally introduced for the 
 convenience of marking, or that it was the result of 
 a compact between the Vice-Chancellor and the Under- 
 graduates, — a compact about as real as that which plays 
 so conspicuous a part in some theories of the origin of 
 government. 
 
 Now pues, as we are told by Dr Udall, whose 
 name I shall presently bring before you, were much 
 esteemed as sheltering from observation those who would 
 not, in this point, obey the law of the Church. 
 
 III. A third reason for the erection of pues may 
 be found in the injunction of the Canons of 1640, 
 about bowing towards the Altar. 
 
 A most elaborate defence of this custom was made 
 by Dr Lawrence, chaplain to the king, in a sermon 
 preached at court by him, on Feb. 7, 1640; and after- 
 wards published by his Majesty's special command. 
 
 Edmund Heeves, two years later, says in the book 
 before quoted : " The Divine Wisdom of the Church 
 calling the Sacred Table God's Board, doth give us 
 to understand that that is to be accounted the peculiar 
 scat of God within the Temple ; and therefore to- 
 wards it unto God there we are to make low obeisance, 
 whenever we come into God's House to pray. Also 
 as the Chair of State is always to be honoured, though 
 the Person of the Royal Majesty be not seen therein, 
 so is God's Board always to have due reverence, and 
 God, Who is there perpetually, is always to be pro- 
 strated unto."
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 33 
 
 The next year a bitter pamphlet was written against 
 this practice as introduced into the church at Chester, 
 by John Ley, Rector of Great Bud worth, and a pre- 
 bendary of that cathedral. He says (p. 26), " I never 
 yet bowed head either to, or towards, the Altar, or 
 the Holy Table." This unfortunate man was one of 
 the very few cathedral clergy who in time of persecu- 
 tion fell away; he became afterwards a member of the 
 Committee for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
 • It is remarkable that the orthodox clergy were ac- 
 cused by the Romanists of idolatry, in conforming to 
 this custom. We, said they, in bowing to the Altar, 
 adore the Corporal Presence of our Saviour. You, who 
 believe in no such doctrine, are worshipping the work 
 of your own hands. Hence arose that distinction on 
 the part of the Anglican's of bowing to and toward 
 the Altar, which we may have noticed in some of the 
 passages quoted above. 
 
 About this time, we read, with reference to the 
 same subject, much of Durhamlsts and Anti-Dur- 
 hamists. The terms will be best explained by some 
 extracts I shall read to you from a pamphlet, called 
 Ccmterhiirif s Crueltie, written by the "infamous Peter 
 Smart," Prebendary of Durham. Nor do I think that 
 I am at all wandering from my proper subject in bring- 
 ing these passages before you, bearing so closely as 
 they do on the ancient arrangement of our churches. 
 And I may add, that great light is thrown on the 
 whole matter by a ground plan of Brancepeth church, 
 Durham, as arranged by Bishop Cosin, which is in the 
 Society's Portfolio. 
 
 3
 
 34 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 "This Cousin," says Smart, "hatli defiled the church 
 of Durham, and the service therein with images and 
 altars, and many superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies ; 
 as he hath done all other places where he had to do; 
 and for this cause being so wicked a beast (a little 
 specimen of Puritan courtesy), and so cruel in perse- 
 cuting me, he hath been greatly in Bishop Neale and 
 Bishop Laud's favour." 
 
 Again : in his petition, presented Nov. 3, 1640, 
 to the House of Commons, he says : " After the death 
 of Bishop James, Bishop Neale coming to the See of 
 Durham, the then Dean and Prebendaries of that Ca- 
 thedral Church cast out the Communion Table of the 
 said Church, and erected an High Altar at the east end 
 of the Chancel of marble stones, with a carved screen 
 most gloriously painted and gilded, which cost about 
 £200. And they bought for Ws. one Cope found in 
 a search after Mass Priests embroidered with the Holy 
 Trinity, and other images ; and another Cope worth 
 about ten groats, which had been a long time used by 
 the youth of Durham in their sports and May-games, 
 — a very fool's coat — both which Copes they used at the 
 administration of the Holy Communion at their Altar. 
 To which Altar themselves both did, and forced others 
 to use unreasonable frequent bowing. D. Cousin offici- 
 ated thereat with his face to the East, and back to 
 the people. They did take away the Morning Prayer, 
 to which about 200 persons did alway resort, at six, 
 and altered the same into singing with instruments. 
 They did likewise set up fifty-three glorious images 
 and pictures."
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 35 
 
 In the speech of Fr. Rous, Esq. at the impeach- 
 ment of Archbishop Laud, IMarch 16, 1640, we read 
 (p. 7) : " The Altar, Copes, etc. cost more than £2000. 
 They caused two choristers in their surplices to come 
 from the West end of the Chancel with lighted torches 
 in their hands, to the Altar, who did light the can- 
 dles upon the same with their torches ; which done, 
 they returned backward with many bowings." 
 
 And further on : " The Font they removed from 
 the ancient usual place in the Chancel (a true speci- 
 men of puritanic antiquity), and placed it out of the 
 Chancel, where Divine Service is never read." 
 
 In A Short Treatise of Altars, written by this 
 author in l629j he speaks of " corruptions which hav- 
 ing begun at Durham, have since spread themselves 
 over all the Cathedral and Collegiate churches and 
 colleges of this realm : yea, and many parish-churches 
 have set up Altars, images, and organs, where they 
 never were since the days of King Philip and Queen 
 Mary." 
 
 A little further on, we have the word pues used 
 for stalls or seats. Bishop Cosin, says Smart, would 
 " say to others, even gentlewomen of the best rank, 
 sitting in their pues. Can ye not stand, you lazy sows? 
 when the Nicene Creed was sung." 
 
 In reading these extracts, it is right to remember 
 that many of the charges were solemnly denied by Dean 
 Cosin ; and so notorious was Smart's character, that 
 his counsel, S. John, a vehement puritan, told him 
 plainly before the House of Lords, "I am ashamed 
 of you and of your cause." 
 
 3 — 2
 
 36 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 It appears, however, that about this time the pre- 
 sent practice of kneeling down on taking a seat, was 
 beginning to supersede that of bowing to the Altar. 
 
 In a volume of Sermons preached on Sundays and 
 Saints Days, hy P. H misted, Curate at Ujjpingham, 
 1636, the author says, p. 222: "But I hear another 
 object, will not presently kneeling down in my seat 
 when I come into the church, and saying a private 
 prayer, lifting up a private ejaculation unto the Lord, 
 serve the turn, without first bowing down and pros- 
 trating myself unto the Altar?" 
 
 In the Director ij, 1644, it is ordered, "Let all 
 enter the assembly, not irreverently, but in a grave 
 and seemly manner, taking their seats and places with- 
 out any bowing, to one place or another." 
 
 This practice was not generally revived at the 
 Hestoration. The Convocation order, 1662: "They 
 shall make their humble address to Almighty God 
 for His Divine blessing and assistance upon the ser- 
 vices to be performed ; and His gracious acceptance of 
 the same." 
 
 As late, however, as 1682, I find the following 
 passage in a tract called. Of the worship of God to- 
 ivard the Holy Table or Altar, (p. 108) : 
 
 " Why must we make courtesy when we come into 
 the church ? can we not stay till we come to our pews, 
 and then fall down to our prayers?" 
 
 The practice of bowing is, I am informed, kept up 
 in the Cathedral Church at Oxford ; and at Hereford 
 and Canterbury, the Canons, if I am not mistaken, 
 are bound to it by oath.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 37 
 
 Bishop Montague had asked in 1638 (viii. 11), 
 " Do all your parishioners, when they are to receive 
 
 the Holy Communion come to the Lord's Table? 
 
 And not (after the most contemptuous and unholy usage 
 of some, if men did but rightly consider) sit still in 
 their seats and pews, to have the Blessed Body and 
 Blood of his Saa^our go up and down to seek them all 
 the church over?" And I had intended to give the 
 Society some illustrations of the method in which this 
 " unholy usage" bore on the famous order of Archbishop 
 Laud, that all Communion Tables should be removed 
 to the east end. Time however forbids; and I must 
 hasten to introduce to your notice a curious tract writ- 
 ten in 1641, on the express subject of pues: from 
 which, as it is nearly unknown, I shall make no apo- 
 logy for reading you copious extracts. It is called 
 TD nPEnON EYXAP12TIXON : Communion Comeli- 
 nesse: wherein is discovered the conveniency of' the 
 people's drawing nigh to the Tahle in the sight., there- 
 of, ivhen they receive the Lords Supper. With the 
 great unjitnesse of receiving it in Peices in London, for 
 the novelty of High and Close Pewes. Sy Uphraim 
 Udall, D.D., Rector of S. Austi?i's, London. 
 
 In a copy of this Author's Noli me tangere, in Tri- 
 nity Library, is the following IMS. note, written in a 
 very old hand : 
 
 "This Pamphlet was written by IMr E. Udall, 
 Hector of S. Austin's. He was much followed and 
 admired by the puritans before the rebellion, and 
 esteemed a precious man among them. But when he 
 perceived whither they were driving, he began to dc-
 
 38 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 clare pretty freely against rebellion and sacrilege. He 
 therefore published this and some other pamphlets to 
 stop their career. But as they contained a great many 
 insufferable truths, fit indeed to convict, but not to 
 reclaim them, this stung them so severely that they 
 resolved to be avenged on him, notwithstanding all his 
 former moderation. They therefore not only deprived, 
 but plundered him ; turning his aged and lame wife 
 out of doors, with particular circumstances of inhuma- 
 nity and barbarity." Walker gives a nearly similar 
 account, and White makes him No. 23 of his Cen- 
 tury. 
 
 In the very outset of the Tract we are informed 
 of another reason why the puritans held pues in esteem. 
 Those who received the Holy Communion in their pues 
 escaped the notice of every one but the clergyman, 
 with respect to standing or kneeling ; nothing, as we 
 well know, being more odious to them than the en- 
 forcement of the latter position ; and if the clergyman 
 presented them, nothing was easier than to accuse him 
 to the Commons of malignancy. 
 
 The following extracts throw, I think, much light on 
 the internal arrangements of churches ; and the church 
 of S. Tydecho, Mallwydd, in Merionethshire and Mont- 
 gomeryshire, is an instance of a similar arrangement 
 now : the then Rector having refused obedience to 
 Archbishop Laud's mandates, and the disposition of 
 the seats having remained unaltered from his day. The 
 Holy Table here stands in the middle of the Chancel, 
 and is surrounded on all sides by pues. 
 
 In p. 2, l)r Udall laments how far we arc dege-
 
 THE HISTORY OF I'EWS. 39 
 
 neratecl from receiving, in London especially, by a late 
 new kind of building the pues so much higher and 
 closer than heretofore ; and asserts that thirty years be- 
 fore (i.e. 1611) this innovation was only beginning to 
 be thought of; and that even then it had very little 
 infected country parishes, and was quite unknown in 
 AYales. 
 
 Speaking of the arrangements adopted in his own 
 church, he says, 
 
 " I set up a square rail in the Chancel in time 
 of Communion only; and that within the pews that 
 were made to fold down for that use, excepting the 
 east end, where the pew w^as removed before I came : 
 by this means I received a double row of communi- 
 cants one within the other near the Table in a very 
 small Chancel, to the number of forty or fifty at one 
 time, in the pew and at the rails." 
 
 His plan is as follows : 
 
 "In the administration of the Communion it may 
 be wished that the best provision that can be devised 
 be made to have the greatest number of Communicants 
 together at one time at the table, in sight thereof 
 and within hearing of the minister, that can be received 
 thither. And when they have received that they may 
 depart, and another company come in their room, 
 and so after them a third and a fourth, till all have 
 received, which may be done in a very small Chancel 
 by providing that they may sit a double row of com- 
 municants, the pews being made square about the Chan- 
 cel, and one of them before the other; as it is and 
 hath been used in the church of Black Friers, London,
 
 40 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 only with this difference : That whereas that church 
 hath the inner pews immoveable, because it useth not 
 that ground for buriall, which is the case in other 
 churches, the inner pews may be made so as they may 
 be removed when the ground is to be used for buriall, 
 as now is practised in many churches, where all the 
 pews of the church are so ordered, that any of them, 
 and all of them successively, are taken up, and the 
 ground used. And this order of a double row of pews 
 may be in any Chancel of indifferent greatness, that 
 will bear two rows of pews. And where the Chancel 
 is so small, and the room so strait, that only one row 
 of pews may stand continually, there may be provided 
 a moveable Rail or Wainscot, to be used only at the 
 Communion time, and placed within the pews, that the 
 Minister may give the Communion to them that are 
 at the rail or wainscot, and to those also that be in 
 the pews behind them, as it hath been used in some 
 places by the care and device of some ministers, that 
 desiring the benefit and edification of their people by 
 seeing and hearing and communicating together as 
 members of one body, have in this manner brought 
 them together about the Table, where forty or fifty 
 are at one time together, about and near the same, 
 the pews going round about the Chancel, and a rail 
 within the pews for the Communicants to kneel at, 
 which after the Communion is removed till the next 
 Communion. And so from time to time." 
 
 Again, he says, "The Communion is rent and di- 
 vided in to so many single societies of twos and threes 
 as there be pewfulls in the whole church. And there-
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 41 
 
 fore is it like private Masses, though they do receive, 
 if they receive it scattered here and there, and are 
 shut up close, that they cau neither see nor hear until 
 the minister come to the pews where they sit ; in 
 which sometimes there are divers pews, and they far 
 distant one from the other, in which there are but one 
 or two Communicants in the corner, and one or two in 
 the other corner, and others up in the gallery, and so 
 to have the JMinister to hunt up and down to search 
 them out. And I think shortly, the Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper will get up into the steeple among 
 the Belfs with us, as the Sacrament of Baptism hath 
 heretofore done among the Papists. 
 
 " One single Communicant alone in a pew by him- 
 self, and rent from all the rest of the Communicants, 
 and receiving, as it were, in a room alone, is as it is 
 ia housling of the sick among the Papists." 
 
 P. 6. " They are built higher and larger than here- 
 tofore they have been, fitter it may be for greater 
 attention that the ancient pews, which were not above 
 the middle of the body, and exposed men's eyes to 
 more roving and wandering than those high pews, which 
 arc more private." 
 
 P. 7. " Draw near and receive. Intending, whe- 
 ther the Communion were administered in the Chancel 
 or body of the church, the Table should stand in the 
 midst, and the Communicants come near about it, which 
 notwithstanding, was most commonly done in the Chan- 
 cel for communicating in pews, so generally as of late, is 
 but a late usage, and at first was practised but by some 
 few particular ministers, as they supposed it most con-
 
 42 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 veiiient tliat all might be nearest together to see and 
 hear : which in some places where the pews were low, 
 and the Chancel little or inconveniently distant from 
 the body of the church, was done in the body of the 
 church." 
 
 P. 8. " If therefore the Communion be administered 
 in pews they must be cut down. And certainly, if 
 the late reviving of the ancient manner of bringing 
 up the people by turns into the Chancel to the Table, 
 had been so wise as to have made use of the whole 
 Chancel as well as the Hail, and so happy as to have 
 escaped the folly of erecting an Altar, and there wor- 
 shipping the work of their own handsj it had been 
 incomparably more convenient. 
 
 " It is a needless weariness put upon the minister 
 to go up and down the churcli reaching and stretch- 
 ing out, rending and tearing themselves in long pews, 
 to hold forth the elements over four or five persons : 
 it is also an occasion of shedding or spilling the bread 
 and wine." 
 
 P. 11. "It might be wished that in London there 
 mifht be some provision made of a rail or wainscot, 
 standing some convenient distance from the Table on 
 Communion-days : for we cannot spare all the. Chancel 
 for that purpose by shutting up the doors." 
 
 P. 12. "And in some places boys do write on the 
 Table, it being prepared for the Chancel." He also 
 mentions another objection to pues, namely, 
 
 " Danger of infection from plague, or person with 
 a plague sore, — no uncommon thing in London congre- 
 gations."
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 43 
 
 P. 15. " If the rail offend there may be a wainscot 
 made instead thereof, as it is in Blackfryars ; the seats 
 of which are so ordered abont the Table, that two or 
 three rows of Communicants may come at one time 
 round about it, and in view of it : which Church liath 
 never been accused of Popery. 
 
 "At the rail it shall be seen whether they kneel, or 
 no ; all in close pews may be concealed." 
 
 P. 17. Amongst innovations he reckons "a wainscot 
 screen to keep off the wind, high pews, beneficial that 
 way, also locks to our pew-doors, that we may enjoy^them 
 ourselves, larger lights and windows, galleries for your 
 youth to sit in, that were wont to stand at their Master 
 and Dame's pew-doors; for many years after churches 
 were built there were no pews at all ;" but such people 
 first bringing stools, " it grew from them to benches, and 
 after into pews, and at last to what it is now come unto." 
 
 From these extracts we may gather the opinion of 
 a very "low Churchman" of his day on the great harm 
 of pues. And his testimony to the then novelty of their 
 adoption is irresistible. 
 
 P. 20. "Rails round the Table, not moveable — in 
 middle of Chancel are not Popish nor an innovation, for 
 the use of rails have been the custom in many churches, 
 toune and country, beyond the memory of many peo- 
 ple, 60 or 80 years old. In the books of some churches 
 in London, they are said to be set up in beginning of 
 Q. Elizabeth's reign, before which they were not used." 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, that between the years 
 1646 and 1660, scarcely any pues would appear to have 
 been erected. I have never seen a single instance of one
 
 44 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 bearing date within this period ; and this may serve 
 to prove the truth of what I have been saying with 
 respect to the reasons which led the puritans to adopt 
 them. For now that the cause was gone ; now that 
 people might sit, stand, or lie down, as they pleased, 
 at the Communion — might abstain from bowing towards 
 the Altar, or at the Holy Name — the effect ceased too. 
 
 A gallery was erected, however, in 1657", in Glou- 
 cester S. Nicholas ; and we are told that at S. Peter's', 
 Paul's Wharf, where the Church Service was used for 
 some time previously to the Restoration, many of the 
 nobility flocked to hear it, and were accommodated in 
 galleries hung with rich Turkey-work carpets. 
 
 But, though our churches were even at the Resto- 
 ration comparatively free from pues, England's charac- 
 ter had been puritanized, and the questions of her 
 prelates evince a different feeling with respect to them ; 
 a disposition to look at them in the light of a neces- 
 sary evil. Bishop Laney asks (1662), "Is there any 
 strife or contention for the pews or seats in your church ? 
 Have any new pews been erected in your Chancel, or 
 the body of your church, without leave of the ordinary ?" 
 And Bishop Rainbow (1665) asks nearly the same 
 question. 
 
 Still, pues were sufficiently common, and churches 
 began here and there — chiefly in large towns — to be 
 pued throughout. In The Oracles of the D'lsfienters, 
 (1707), we are told that the spire of S. JNIary Tower, 
 at Ipswich, was blown down, Feb. 18, 1661 ; and on 
 account of its fall the church had to be repued. 
 
 ^ C. S. - Nkwcourt, S. Peter.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 45 
 
 Sir Christopher Wren, it is well known, made a 
 gallant, though unsuccessful stand, against the intro- 
 duction of pues into his London churches. 
 
 There is a pue in the chancel of Leigh', Surrey, 
 bearing date 1677 ; one in Steeple Morden", Cambridge- 
 shire, 1687; one in Llanfwrog, Denbighshire, l690^ 
 
 The first instance I have met vvith of the unhappy- 
 practice of making the income of a clergyman dependent 
 on his pue-rents, occurs at the erection of S. Anne's, 
 Westminster, into a separate parish, in 16S6\ 
 
 At the revolution, churches began to assume their 
 present appearance, and were repued by wholesale. 
 Then, too, pues first began to be held in admiration. 
 
 In a sermon preached at the opening of S. Anne's, 
 Annapolis, Maryland, Sept. 24, 1704, by the Rev. 
 Jas. Wootton, mention is made almost in one breath 
 of the pues, and of " this beautiful temple, so enor- 
 mously magnificent." 
 
 America has always dearly loved pues. " We must 
 not forget," says a writer in the North American Re- 
 view, " one remarkable contrivance in our early churches, 
 the arrangement of the pew-seats. These were made 
 with hinges, so that in prayer time they might be 
 raised up and allow the occupants to lean against the 
 back of the pew. At the close of the prayer they 
 were slammed down with a noise like the broadside 
 of a frigate." 
 
 In Boston, we are told, some of the pues are ac- 
 tually lined with velvet: and the Rev. H. Caswall, in 
 his late History of the American Church, laments 
 
 1 C. S. ^ C. S. . '' C. S. " Newcourt, S. Anne.
 
 46 THE HISTORY OF PEAVS. 
 
 the uiicliurclilike appearance of some churches which 
 have open seats instead of piies ! 
 
 The few piies which occur here and there in 
 churches on the continent, appear to be of very late 
 date, and materials even worse than our own. 
 
 The Spectator, Guardian, and Tatler, speak of pues 
 as we should do now ; and the occasional glimpses 
 which Sir Charles Grandison gives us of the inside of 
 a church introduce us to the closely pued building of 
 modern days ; as also do Hogarth's pictures. 
 
 Bishop Gibson, of London, was a great promoter of 
 pues ; and the earliest instances I have seen of num- 
 hered pues were put up in his diocese while he filled 
 that chair. His intentions were, however, for the best ; 
 for he says in his directions (1727), "God be thanked, 
 there has of late years been in this nation an unusual 
 zeal for the repairing and beautifying parochial churches, 
 and furnishing them with all proper accommodations 
 for the decent and orderly performance of Divine Ser- 
 vice." The church of S. Nicholas, Shepperton, a cross 
 church, (now much mutilated, but capable of great im- 
 provement,) as arranged by him, has every seat turned 
 towards the pulpit, which is at the south side of the 
 Chancel-arch : an immense space is lost by square pues : 
 there are two such in the Chancel, one of which is the 
 Rector's. 
 
 I will not follow the Puritans, of whom I have had 
 so much to say, in drawing an use from, or, as it 
 would be called now, in improving the subject. It would 
 be mere loss of time. I have shewn you, that pues, 
 originally the offspring of indolence and pride, were
 
 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 47 
 
 soon found most valuable assistants in defying Church- 
 laws, and braving Church-censures. I have told you 
 who were their advocates — men like Prynne, Burton, 
 Bastvvick, Hughes ; I have told you that they were 
 denounced by Laud, and Wren, and Montague, and 
 other holy Bishops, who, partly by their opposition to 
 this very innovation, have won for themselves the Mar- 
 tyr's and the Confessor's Crown. I have not told you 
 — and why need I ? — you have lamented it for your- 
 selves — the destruction and devastation which have 
 followed pues into our churches. Roodscreens, once 
 enshrining the Chancel in their transparent net work, 
 now cut down and baized into a pue-back; brasses, once 
 fondly viewed with the hope that they might preserve 
 the name of a beloved friend for ever, now boarded 
 over or broken in pieces ; piers, recklessly cut half- 
 way through for the reception of a luxurious pue-corner ; 
 windows, Fonts, sedilia, all bear witness against the 
 innovation, for all have suffered by it. Nay, your 
 Church, with every rubrick denouncing, and that in the 
 strongest way, by implication, these abortions of a pu- 
 ritanick age, these distractors of devotion, which, (in 
 so far as they tend to deaden the feeling that in the 
 House of Prayer, we are all one body) offend against 
 our glorious belief in the Communion of Saints, — she 
 herself seems to urge you to lend your aid in the 
 struggle now carrying on against them. 
 
 t] yap i/eou? hpTrovTwi €u/j.€veL Trecw 
 
 airavTa iravooKovaa Traioeim brXov 
 
 eOpe\\/aT o'lKiarrjpaf; a.<T7ricr](p6pov9 
 
 TTicTTovs oTTWs yevoiaOc ttjOos '^(^peoi' Tooe.
 
 48 THE HISTORY OF PEWS. 
 
 And we, who are called by our Ecclesiological pursuits 
 to see more than others of these lidless boxes, painted 
 every colour and all colours, these cattleless pens, there- 
 in inferior to those at Smithfield, that they are never 
 cleaned, but harbour in their tattered green baize the 
 dust and corruption of a century ; — shall we not more 
 than others exert ourselves to cast out the evil ? 
 
 And now I have done. I must leave it to the 
 future historian of pues to tell how the first outcry 
 was raised against them by Dr Warton*; how the first 
 stroke was struck by Dr Burton ; how pues fell before 
 the Archdeacons of East and West Sussex like heroes 
 in Homer before Achilles ; how, since puing does not 
 suit churches, the experiment was tried in 184-0 whether 
 it might not be better adapted for a cathedral, and 
 Bath Abbey being pued and galleried became surpris- 
 ingly like a conventicle ; how objections were raised 
 against wood-seats on the score of family disunion ; how, 
 nevertheless, the Cambridge Camden Society, in 
 itself a host, came into the field, how its members wrote 
 and acted, and, if need be, suffered, in the cause, how 
 in their church of S. Alban the Protomarty^r 
 the Choir had rich oaken misereres, the Nave and 
 Aisles poppy-heads and priedieux, and how, going forth 
 to their several stations in life, they fought, as in other 
 instances, so in this, the battle of Catholick principle 
 against puritanical selfishness, and were in no small 
 degree the cause of its final victory. 
 
 ' Hist, of Kiddington, p. 5.
 
 Note A. p. 9. Since writing the above I have met with a passage 
 where pue bears most distinctly the sense of open seat. It occurs in 
 Dr Cosin's Memorial to Archbishop Laud, in Cambridge, as quoted in 
 Dr Peacock's Observations on our Statutes, p. 96. Here the benches on 
 which the choristers sat in the Chapel of Trinity College, are called by 
 this name. 
 
 Note B. p. 11. The nearest approach to an ancient pue with which 
 I am acquainted occurs in Lavenham Church, Suflfolk, where are two rich 
 covered stalls of late Perpendicular work, which certainly bear some ap- 
 proximation to pues, though in fact they are not really so, any more than 
 the Decanal seat in the Choir of a Cathedral. 
 
 N. B. By C. S. in the foregoing pages the Society's Church Schemes 
 are referred to, from which (pues being one of our items) much infor- 
 mation was to be gained.
 
 THE STATISTICS OF PUES 
 
 A REPORT 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 THE SUB-COMMITTEE 
 
 APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE COMPARATIVE ACCOMMO- 
 DATION AND EXPENCE OF PUES AND OPEN SEATS 
 
 On MONDAY December 6 1841
 
 UIUC
 
 A REPORT, 
 
 A Sub-Committee of the Cambridge Camden 
 Society has recently been engaged in an inquiry into 
 the comparative advantages of pues and open benches 
 in churches, as to the numbers they are capable of ac- 
 commodating : the results they have arrived at plead so 
 strongly in favour of the open benches, on the simple 
 ground of their superior capacity, that it is thought 
 advisable to lay them before the public. They appear 
 to form a suitable Appendix to a historical notice of 
 pues which has for its object to condemn those in- 
 closures on historical grounds: — and by thus proving 
 that both history and statistics are against them, it is 
 hoped that something may be done towards that goodly 
 work which has been so well begun in other quarters' 
 — the abolition of pues. 
 
 As pues are much the same everywhere, it is of 
 little importance to mention where the investigations 
 were made which are the ground of our statements, 
 except as a guarantee that those statements are the 
 result of actual observation. Churches in and about 
 Cambridge were most accessible, and surveys were made 
 of the churches of S. Michael, S. Edward, S. Mary 
 the Less, and The Holy Trinity, in Cambridge : and of 
 
 ^ See Archdeacon Hare's Charge, pp. 11 — 14.
 
 54 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 
 
 those of (Jhestertoii, Barton, Comberton, Madingley, 
 and Barnwell S. Andrew and Christ Church. 
 
 The grounds for calculation assumed in this in- 
 quiry were these : 
 
 (1) That church accommodation, to be worthy the 
 name, must provide for the three postures which are 
 contemplated by the Ritual, or at least required by 
 the practice, of the Church of England — which are, 
 
 Kneeling — for Confession of sins and Prayer: 
 Standing — for Praise and Profession of Faith : 
 Sitting — to hear the Word of God and Sermons. 
 
 (2) That all persons in the body of the church 
 should have their faces at all times turned toward the 
 
 east. 
 
 (3) That, as to space, it is generally considered 
 that about 18 inches is an adequate width of seat 
 (from his right to his left) for each person : — the di- 
 mensions required from back to front in the pue or 
 bench will be examined into presently. 
 
 Pues may, for convenience sake, be considered as of 
 two kinds: (i) the square pue: (2) the long pue. 
 
 I. Pues called for brevity's sake square, are of all 
 dimensions, and mostly oblong ; they have been termed, 
 and not inaptly, compcmy pues, from the occupants 
 sitting round in them, as at a table — sometimes in 
 reality round a table, as may be seen in some country- 
 churches. This is confessedly the most objectionable 
 species of pue : indeed, the objections to it are so ob- 
 vious as to need little remark. The impropriety which 
 they involve, of some of their occupants sitting with 
 their backs to the Altar, sufficiently condemns them, on
 
 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 55 
 
 grounds distinct from those on which we are now trying 
 them. But on these grounds, too, they stand condemned 
 no less ; for the waste of room by them is enormous. 
 This is apparent on the face of the thing, but to give 
 some idea of the extent of room lost we subjoin a few 
 statistics. It was found convenient to take an area of 
 42 feet (from E. to W.) by 7 feet 6 (from N. to S.), 
 for the purpose of comparing the capacity of these pues 
 with that of open benches. The average case of this 
 species of pue, and perhaps the most favourable, is 
 where the pues are somewhat small, and rather ob- 
 long than square. Our area of 42 feet by 7 feet 6 
 will contain six such pues, each 7 feet 6 (N. to S.) 
 by 7 feet (E. to W.) The utmost such a pue will 
 hold is nine, to sit; for kneeling it must be reduced 
 to seven. The six pues therefore will hold forty-two : 
 whereas in the same area seventeen benches at least 
 (as will be shewn hereafter) may be placed, each hold- 
 ing five persons, or eighty-five in all, double the number. 
 But further, if these pues be held (as generally they 
 are) by separate families, the average number of occu- 
 pants will probably be about five. However, these 
 pues are too monstrous to be defended, and are per- 
 haps little likely to be put up in churches at the pre- 
 sent day ; yet to get rid of the existing specimens is a 
 task of some difficulty. 
 
 II. It is the pues we have called long pues that 
 appear to be the more proper subject of our compa- 
 rison. For these much more may be said, and they 
 will be proportionably more difficult to extirpate. They 
 do not oblige persons to turn their backs to the east.
 
 56 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 
 
 or to sit round as at a lire-side, or kneel face to face, 
 converging to a centre — or (not always at least) to half 
 kneel and half sit, propped on a seat-edge behind and 
 a hassock before ; moreover, they have the appearance 
 of making the utmost of every inch of room. We 
 say the appearance: for in this respect we hope to 
 make it clear to a demonstration, that benches are su- 
 perior to pues — viz. as to the numbers they will con- 
 tain, in a given space, of attendants on the ritual of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 Let us first refer to some measurements made in 
 Christ Church, Barnwell. Here we find in a length of 
 40 feet fourteen pues : in the same length (in the middle 
 alley of the church) eighteen benches. The numbers 
 contained in a given space are therefore as nine to 
 seven ; in other words, by putting benches instead of 
 pues, there is a gain of about twenty-eight per cent. 
 Now in this instance both pue and bench were evi- 
 dently planned to hold as many as conveniently might 
 be. Whence then the difference of accommodation? 
 
 Again, in S. Michael's Church, Cambridge ; in the 
 same area, as before, we find only thirteen pues, and 
 consequently a loss of thirty-eight per cent, by not 
 having benches It should be observed, that in all 
 these cases it is just possible to kneel. 
 
 The difference of accommodation that wc have just 
 detected we conceive to arise solely from the different 
 height of the pues and benches, as affecting the faci- 
 lity of kneeling. The pues in S. Michael's are 4 ft. 
 6in. high; the pues at Barnwell 3 ft. 6 in., and the 
 benches there 3 ft.
 
 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 57 
 
 Let US consider what the true theory of kneeling 
 is. To kneel is to touch the ground with the hnees 
 (TiOevai •yovara) '. this definition of course leaves the 
 question open, whether the body from the knees up- 
 ward is to be erect or prostrate, or between the two. 
 We of the west are, however, agreed on the nem'ly 
 erect posture, leaving the prostrate to the orientals. 
 But it is found in practice that long-continued erect 
 kneeling, without support, causes such weariness, and 
 even pain, as to render devotion well nigh impossible ; 
 and accordingly some support behind or before is usual. 
 In convents the resource is to sit on the heels, a pos- 
 ture of greater rest but also of greater pain^ than the 
 erect. The modern "hassock" of our pues is a modi- 
 fication of this, especially when it is made very thick 
 (it varies from 6 inches to 2 feet) : by this invention 
 the support is divided between the floor under the feet, 
 the hassock in front, and the seat behind. But the 
 more simple, and of old usual resource, is to have a 
 support at a suitable height in front ; at such a height, 
 that is, as easily to support the body when slightly 
 inclined forward, and not so low as to make the pos- 
 ture lounging. This appears to be the reasonable and 
 reverential mode of kneeling at our ritual, alike free 
 from distraction through uneasiness, and from drowsi- 
 ness through over-much ease; and this mode we find 
 fully recognized in the provision for kneeling made in 
 the old oaken benches of our own churches, where such 
 exist, and in the foreign Prie-dieux. It is very re- 
 markable how exceedingly low, to our notions, are the 
 
 ^ See Six Weeks in a Convent. 
 
 5
 
 58 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 
 
 supports for kneeling at in old benches. In Chester- 
 ton church they are little more than 2 feet high ; in 
 S. Michael's, Cambridge, sometimes under 2 feet, i. e. 
 considerably less than breast high for a man of ordi- 
 nary height; so lowly did they of old time think it 
 became them to bend in prayer. 
 
 This view of kneeling leads to results important 
 to our present inquiry. For wherever the support in 
 question is no other than the back of the bench which 
 is in front of the kneeler, as at Chesterton and else- 
 where, it follows that that bench must be as high as, 
 and no higher than, such support ought to be : and 
 thus it appears that according to old practice and the 
 reasonable mode of kneeling, the height of the hack of 
 the bench is to he regulated hy the convenience of him 
 ivho kneels at it from hehincl^ not of him who sits 
 in it. Again, this mode of kneeling causes the person 
 kneeling to lean over the support in front of him ; if 
 then the hench before him he low enough for him to 
 make it his snppo7't, he will kneel at it, leaning par- 
 tially forward into his neighbour's seat (who will be 
 kneeling also, and therefore npt incommoded thereby) ; 
 and in this case he may kneel without his bench being 
 made wider from hack to front than is required for 
 sitting and standing: but if the pue before him he 
 too high to admit of his using the top of it as his 
 support^ then to enable him to kneel at ally the pue 
 he occupies must be made wider than mere sitting 
 and standing require. And thus it is that the use 
 of low benches causes such a great saving of spac^, 
 In the case of the Barnwell benches one may kneel
 
 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 59 
 
 leaning over the bench in front ; in the pues there it is 
 possible to lean over slightly, they being low for pues; 
 while in S. JNIichaers, you cannot lean over the top 
 at all, owing to the extreme height, and therefore a 
 broad book-board is placed at about 3 feet from the 
 ground to kneel at. 
 
 It only remains to state the quantity of space to 
 be gained by the use of benches in this way. For 
 pues, 3 feet and upwards from back to front is f^ 
 from an uncommon width, and this width is necessa 
 when the sides are high ; 21ft. lOin. is the smp' 
 width compatible with kneeling: but in an open 
 2ft. Gin. is abundant, and we believe that 2ft. 4ir 
 be found quite as roomy as 2ft. lOin. for a pu 
 then, a middle course, and allowing 2ft. Hi 
 and 2ft. 5in. for a bench, the number of p 
 be accommodated in the same area by p 
 will be in the proportion of 2^5 to 2^ 
 or about 100 to 120: so that there wi^ 
 least 20 per cent, by the use of ben 
 about 20 per cent, by the use of pv 
 in order that the fact may not ^ 
 cent., or one-fifth of the " availr 
 of a church, is lost by the 
 Surely, if this fact had been bf 
 lery might have been dispen? 
 
 Estimates from Messrs 
 bridge, have been obtained, 
 the expence of oak-bench 
 that of deal-pues; this is, 
 covered; for the same r
 
 60 PUES AND OPEN BENCHES. 
 
 fairest way, the benches will he the cheaper. This 
 
 estiiriauC does not include carving. In re-seating an 
 
 old church which is already pued, it would be much 
 
 chcu^;er to put in oak-benches, since pues involve a 
 
 iiew rioor, which benches do not ; and this is a serious 
 
 item in the account. We have sdd that our estimate 
 
 does not include carving, but we do not mean that 
 
 .here should be none ; this will add to the expence 
 
 r simple poppy-heads about sixteen shillings per 
 
 "nch ; for a carved elbow about as much more. But 
 
 "osing that this expence cannot be met, we throw 
 
 ns suggestion : In putting oak benches into a 
 
 have the poppy-heads cut in a general form by 
 
 ,er, ready for the carver to begin his work. 
 
 s in this state look well (compared with 
 
 ') though unfinished, and the poppy-heads 
 
 gradually in the course of years, as 
 
 •aised. In any parish there would be 
 
 ig ere long : indeed, the incomplete 
 
 • benches will be sufficient to awaken 
 
 Ml as think money well bestowed in 
 
 n the arrangements of a church — 
 
 ^increase. 
 
 "^^ourselves to purely statistical 
 
 >^on of OPEN BENCHES ; and 
 
 '^oi argument, increase of 
 
 favoTir, when tlie nvfitnesfi, 
 
 ^ess, and the Puritanick as- 
 
 ^\e bc^n dwelt on in vain.
 
 ^'^"■■m