that families which are anxious to sit together can secure that object in free churches by simply going early. Nor let it be imagined that the necessity of going in good time is a hardship or inconvenience. In our own college chapel, any undergraduate who wishes to occupy a particular seat on Sunday evenings is compelled to be there some five or ten minutes before the hour strikes. I have never heard any one complain about it, nor do I believe that any of us look upon it as a nuisance.

Objection 2. The pleasure of having a fixed seat.

We must again insist on the universality of the argument. If it is a pleasure to know where one is going to sit, the pew-holders, that is to say, a very small minority of the parishioners, are not the only persons who would like to enjoy that pleasure. The excluded majority would much like to know where they are going to sit. And indeed it is strange that the wealthy few should wish deliberately to inflict an acknowledged inconvenience upon the many by monopolizing a right which the law declares to be common to all; and that too, when, by so doing, they bring the welfare of thousands upon thousands of souls into jeopardy.

In the second place, any person desirous of securing the same place Sunday after Sunday, can do so as certainly in free as in appropriated churches, by simply going in good time. Thus nothing would be lost on this point by making all the sittings free, and at least punctuality might be gained. Under the present system, though half the appropriated pews are unoccupied, strangers or parishioners, who have no purchased seat and cannot find room in the free sittings, must be left standing until it is quite certain that the owners of the pews do not intend to come in late. Hence much

In many bepewed churches these private boxes are not thrown open to the public until the end of the psalms, or even of the second lesson. The wrongs of the stranger are less obvious: but it would be a parallel case to that of the parishioners if a few of the more wealthy members of the Union were to club together and calmly to sell to the highest bidders among themselves all the best seats in the debating room. On the night of a debate, the other members coming in find the remaining seats occupied; the best seats indeed are empty, but no one must occupy them until it is ascertained, or presumed from the prolonged absence of their owners that they will not want their seats that night. The expectant members are then as a charity allowed the use of their own property, but only as a charity.

confusion is introduced into the service, which might be to a great degree obviated by the free system.

Objection 3. The churches at watering places, &c.

Appropriation in a modified degree seems to be justifiable in this case, and where there is a rush to any given church in consequence of some unusual attraction, such as an extraordinarily eloquent preacher, a splendid service, or on special occasions, such as confirmations, club sermons, &c. Exceptional measures may legitimately be taken to meet an exceptional state of things. It is just that in these cases the parishioners should have a prior claim to the use of the best seats in the church. If either party must be inconvenienced, it should be the visitors: it is hardly fair to expect the parishioners to content themselves with out-of-the-way corners and back seats. But on the other hand, it is illegal to exclude any orderly person from a church: visitors therefore, be they never so numerous, must be admitted; and consequently the parishioners must be protected. The author of the second essay on the English Pew System, p. 39, suggests a simple plan by which this difficulty may be successfully met without adopting permanent appropriation.

Objection 4. Free seats are already assigned in most churches to the poor.

This is true but no one will assert that they are any but the worst seats, behind pillars, well to one side of the building, or to the rear; the farthest from the preacher. So that the rich, whose ears are better accustomed to catch and interpret sounds, have the nearer places: while those who are naturally harder of hearing and slower of comprehension, are the furthest removed, when according to common sense, if it really were desired that justice should be done under the appropriation system, their positions should be exactly reversed. As the poor grew more blind or deaf they should be moved up nearer to the preacher; and at no time should they be slighted if the church is to retain an affectionate hold over them. In appropriated churches, if any provision at all is made for those who have become deaf by age, it generally consists in allowing them to sit in the front seat of all immediately under the pulpit, where they can hear indeed, but not conveniently see, the preacher. It is generally

found that no one else cares to sit on this bench.

Objection 5. The poor do not occupy what room they have, and therefore it is not true that they require more.

This statement will in many cases be found to be only too true but the inference from it we deny in toto. It is

very probable that the invidious distinction made in many churches between rich and poor may have much to do with the reluctance of the working classes to attend the services. Be that how it may, it cannot be denied that under the pew system the great majority of the poor, if the exhortations of the clergy prevailed and induced them to wish greatly to attend the services, would be entirely excluded. There is only room for a very limited number of poorer worshippers at once, the greater part of the building is sold, and has become private property. Thus it is perfectly senseless for clergymen to urge their parishioners to be regular in their attendance, because it is well known that, if they were, there would be no place for them, even though half the pews were empty. The truth is that things have come to such a pass that the working-man has almost ceased to look upon the parish church as his own: and it is difficult to understand how this can be avoided, seeing that he is aware that the greater part of it is partitioned among the rich, and that he is only allowed there on sufferance and by charity. There is abundant testimony to prove that when the church has been made entirely free, the poor are much more willing to attend.

Objection 6. The unpleasant mixture of classes.

This objection is practically found to be groundless. The English poor have a great deal of pride and delicacy of feeling. A chimney sweep would no more think of obtruding himself upon a finely dressed lady, than she would think of seating herself among the royal party in Windsor chapel. Moreover sweeps are not in the habit of going to church in their work-a-day clothes. The reader may see for himself how the system works in St. Clement's church in Cambridge: I have never heard of any complaints on these grounds from those who habitually attend the services there. In fact the objection is purely imaginary; the congregation naturally sorts itself, and no inconvenience results.

Objection 7. The necessity of providing seats for invalids. It certainly does not seem advisable to abolish appropriation to the extent of neglecting the comfort of those to whom appropriation is really a blessing, without being at the same time a curse to others. Special arrangements may be, and surely always would be under any circumstances, made for invalids.*

* Permanent appropriation would be justifiable to suit the convenience of schools, town corporations, &c. &c. We would beg

Objection 8. Books and cushions could not be left in free churches.

If I had not frequently heard this objection gravely urged by many clever and I believe, unselfish persons, it would have been incredible to me that any sane Christian should deliberately choose to countenance a system which practically excludes numbers from those means of grace, to the advantages of which he declares himself to be fully alive, rather than endure the trouble of carrying two or three books to and from his church; especially in these days when church services can be procured of such small sizes. It might have been different in the times when a bible weighed about 50 lbs. ; but at the present day the objection appears to me to be in the highest degree captious and unworthy. If any effete dandy is quite unable to support the weight of a few additional ounces in his weekly walk between church and home, he might perhaps, if assisted by his friends, be equal to the effort of making an arrangement with the churchwarden, by which his books and cushion might be kept for him at the church. But even allowing some importance to this difficulty, the question still remains to be answered, on what grounds the rich minority are to be so pampered, while the majority, the poor, those who stand in much greater need of instruction and comfort, to whom religion is more of a stern reality, and less a luxury than to the wealthy-why they are to be placed on such an invidious footing, or to be excluded altogether. The rich can afford to build private chapels, if necessary, and to have their own spiritual instructors; they have readier access to books of all kinds, more time to study and meditate, and many advantages which are denied to the poor. And yet they are the men who deliberately and sacrilegiously portion out and sell among themselves that to which their poorer brethren have an equal right, ignoring the bible, the laws, justice, and expediency, as it seems to me. They adopt a course, which

the reader to bear in mind that total, instant, and uniform abolition of appropriation is not what we advocate. In some cases such a course would be manifestly unjust: but these are the exceptions, and no argument for buying and selling any portion of any church can be based on them. Nor can such exceptional cases ever justify the minority from selfishly excluding the majority, nor indeed the many from excluding the few.

I am forcibly reminded of the story Nathan told David. "There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

if it has not been the primary cause of the present prevalence of irreligion among the lower classes, at all events has a tendency to perpetuate that unhappy state of things, and must be an insuperable barrier against all improvement.

Objection 9. The seats being all made free, there would be erowding and scrambling for places.

Those who advance this objection are to be thanked for the important concession that an abolition of the pew system would bring crowds to church. Surely it would be worth while to risk the scrambling, if we could ensure the crowding. But it is not so; it is exceedingly improbable that there would be any scrambling at all. It is not generally the custom to keep the church doors shut until a few minutes before the commencement of service, and then suddenly throw them open. The doors are open from an early hour, the people drop in one by one, and take the places they choose and those who take the trouble to come in good time have the choice of the whole building. There is no reason to suppose that there would be more scrambling over the whole of the free church than there is at present among the free seats; and there any one may see that there is none.

Objection 10. If all seats were made free, the poor would be as badly off as before, because ladies and gentlemen would still take up the same amount of room as they do now.

This is an assumption which must not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Experience has proved it to be untrue. It always happens that when a church is thrown open to all without distinction, the congregation, supposing it to be already smaller than the whole number which could be accommodated in the church, instead of diminishing or standing still, increases steadily. What is complained of in the pew system is, that it renders attendance at church distasteful to the pride of the poor, so that the free seats are often not filled, while many of the pews remain empty in the absence of their owners. Thus the room that there actually

The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herbs: but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herb, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come unto him." The case is even worse; for the poor parishioners have as much right legally and morally to the appropriated seat as the rich themselves, whereas the poor man in the story could not claim an equal share of the other's possessions.