id="page42"/>civil parish of which they continue to be ratepayers.  The ratepayers of the whole of the old parish have consequently a right to vote in vestry at the election of the Churchwardens in the old parish.  The privilege, however, is not reciprocal, for the ratepayers in the old parish have no similar right of attending at the vestry and voting for Churchwardens in the new district, because they are elected “for ecclesiastical purposes” only.

It would be impossible to speak of the duties of Churchwardens without touching upon the vexed questions of pews.  I suppose that if we could turn the hands of the clock back for some centuries, and were then legislating for the future of the Church with our experience of the pew system by a prophetic anachronism clearly present in our minds, we should hardly suggest for legislation such laws as would bring about the existing state of things.  With the Epistle of St. James in our thoughts there are some points in our present legal system which most persons find it difficult to justify.  But it is a thorny

subject, and I do not want to dogmatise.  It is, perhaps, just the one very point with respect to which great caution is needed, much charity, much forbearance.  You cannot ride rough-shod over old prejudices, or if you do you are sure sooner or later to suffer for it.  No doubt in theory (to use the words of the Bishop of Carlisle) the Churchwardens, as the officers of the ordinary, have, subject to him, the sole appointment and arrangement of the seats.  They are to act to the best of their judgment, and without favour, to the best advantage of all. [43]  And for the most part, in new Churches, this arrangement works well.  Either by agreement of the heads of the parish the Church is declared to be in the popular sense of the term “free and open,” which is perhaps on the whole the best of all or else by mutual forbearance and general co-operation an arrangement is arrived at by which the worshippers in Church have from time to time seats allotted to them.

It is not, however, in the case of new

Churches that difficulties arise, except when these new Churches take the place of old ones.  Then it may be that the old abuses of faculty pews and of supposed exclusive rights in certain holdings have to be contended with.  Cases have occurred where supposed usurpers have been kept out of faculty pews when there is plenty of room, or of locking up the pew when the so-called owner is absent.  Faculty pews are an anomaly, and I wish there were none, but if the title to them can be proved they are legal and must be dealt with accordingly.  I do not imagine that any new faculties are now issued by the Courts, but in the rebuilding of old Churches the dealing with existing faculties requires very tender handling.  It were heartily to be wished that all legal holders of faculty pews would consent to waive their rights for the future, for the sake of peace and the avoidance of jealousies.  Of course in such a case the Churchwardens would feel it an obligation which it would be their pleasure to fulfil, to provide those who give up their rights with such accommodation

as their families may require.  But if, as is sometimes the case, they stand exclusively upon their rights, Churchwardens have no power to abrogate the law, and can only look forward to the future with hope, either that a short Act of Parliament may be passed enacting that at the death of the present owner of a faculty pew that particular faculty should cease, and determine, only excepting (unless with the consent of the owner) cases in which under the Church Building Acts the faculty was issued in consequence of money paid down for the building of the Church with the understanding that the faculty would be granted in consequence: or if this be not done that in the lapse of time some holder of the faculty may regard the matter from an unselfish standpoint and voluntarily resign his rights.

Meanwhile it is well to remember with regard to existing faculty pews that:—

1.  The form of appropriation in old faculties varies considerably.  In order to ascertain the wording of a particular faculty

application should be made to the Diocesan Registrar.

2.  With regard to pews annexed by prescription to certain messuages the right to the pew passes with the messuage, the tenant of which for the time being has also de jure for the time being the prescriptive right to the pew. [46a]

3.  No faculty can be legally granted entitling a non-parishioner to a seat in the body of the Church. [46b]  Any faculty so worded as to allow this is void as far as that particular point is concerned.

4.  No faculty gives power either to the owners and occupiers of the house in respect of which the faculty has been issued to let such seats apart from the houses, or to appropriate them to other persons.

No Churchwarden should ever allow a parishioner to repair the pew which he may

temporarily occupy.  Such an act, if done with the sanction of the Churchwardens, may in after years seem to give a claim to proprietorship in that particular pew.  Too great care cannot be taken to avoid any future misunderstanding.

The matter is too often looked upon as a party question.  The great Duke of Wellington was no party man, and I cannot forbear from quoting in connection with this subject an extract from a letter written to my father, the Bishop of Winchester, in 1836, in response to an application to him to support a Diocesan Church Building Society, which was then in course of formation.  The Duke writes concerning providing accommodation in country Churches as follows:—

“It has frequently occurred to me that when Church room is required the first thing to do is to prevail upon individuals to give up the pews which they cannot use . . . If more space was required I should propose that all pews should be given up, that the whole space of the Church should be laid open for the accommodation of all the

parishioners indiscriminately, separate chairs of a cheap description being provided for their accommodation.  This being done, and space being still required for the accommodation of the parishioners in their attendance upon Divine Service, I would propose to consider the mode of enlarging the Church, or if that could not be effected, of building another Church or Chapel.  It must never be forgotten that another Church or Chapel would require the attendance of another Clergyman, who must live and must be remunerated.  He can be remunerated only by the sale or hire of the pews and places in the new place of Divine worship; and here again would commence the evil which has in my opinion been the most efficient cause of the non-attendance at Divine worship of the lower classes of the people of this country.”