ORNAMENTS: BELLS.

439

which is the Corporation able to act on behalf of the Parish.* The Minister is even bound by very stringent regulations as to the use of any Library left, as has been done in many Parishes, as a Parish Library for his use. He can neither introduce any ornaments or otherwise into the church without the consent of the Parish, nor can he remove anything that is within the church without the same consent. If these simple principles were remembered and acted on, many of the scandals that have lately disgraced the Church, and led to the asking for arbitrary episcopal interference, would have been avoided; and the matters in dispute would have been settled calmly and constitutionally, without either high language or bitter feelings.

The Church Bells belong, like the rest of the goods of the church, to the Parishioners. There has, from of old, been a great pride in having a good peal of Bells in the Parish Church. The Churchwardens ought to take care that they are rung at proper times, and in a proper manner. In this, as other things, the Canons attempt to give the Minister a concurrent authority with the Churchwardens. But there is no warrant for the attempt. The Church Bells belong to, and exist for the exclusive use of, the Parishioners. It is for them and their officers alone to determine when they shall be rung. To attempt to check the cheerful ringing of the Church Bells is equally improper and illegal. The sound of them is dear to the earliest recollections of almost every one; and their music is mixed with the most cherished and happy sympathies of every man of true and simple taste.

The Church Bells ought to be rung before every Vestry. This is the mote-bell named in the ancient Saxon Laws;§-the summons calling men, far and near, to come up to the place of

* See before, p. 101; Roll. Ab. 393; Starkey v. Barton, Cro. Jac. 1 234. 7 Anne, c. 14.

See the case of an action for taking the Church Bells, before, p. 297; the note, p. 321; Moore, 878; Cro. Jac. 367; to which any number of cases could be added. See also the judgments of Dr. Lushington in Westerton v. Liddell (Consistory Court, 5th Dec. 1855), and of Sir J. Dodson in Liddell v. Westerton (Arches Court, 20th Dec. 1856). But more light is thrown upon this important subject, by the evidence produced at the trial of Archbishop Laud, than by all the authorities referred to in those judgments. It is indeed very remarkable that this evidence is not even noticed by either of these learned judges. See Laud's Trial (Canterburie's Doome), pp. 58–114. § See before, p. 57.

moot, or discussion, on their common concerns. In most country parishes, the Bells are rung at a fixed early hour each morning in very many they are also rung at seven or eight o'clock in the evening, under the name of curfew. In some places, after having been thus rung for a quarter of an hour, the day of the month is also tolled:-the fact being, that the church bells have always been used to ring out the intelligence of times and hours,more or less frequently according to circumstances. In many places, Chimes have replaced the hand-ringing of particular divisions of the day. The Bells should, moreover, be rung on every occasion of public rejoicing or ceremony. They are also usually rung before every service of the Church.

It has already been remarked that, though the freehold of the church is, nominally, in the parson, the Parishioners have the use of it, as matter of right. The use is in them, though the technical freehold is in the Parson. The pews belong exclusively to them. The ordering of the pews is the duty of the Churchwardens, with the consent of the Vestry. They are bound so to order them as to afford the greatest amount of accommodation to the Parishioners. The free use of the Church is a Common Right of every Parishioner. Every man in the Parish has a right to a seat without any payment. The minister cannot interfere in the matter.*

"The incumbent has no authority in the seating and arranging the parishioners, beyond that of an individual member of the Vestry. It is not the vicar, but the Vestry, which appropriates seats." Tattershall v. Knight, 1 Phillimore's Reports, pp. 233, 234.

It is well known that pews are a modern innovation, and one of the growths of puritanism. The result has certainly been different from what the Puritans intended; for pews have been one of the main causes of setting up distinctions, offensive to all good taste and Christian simplicity, even in the House of God. In a remarkable old case (Year Books, 8 Hen. VII. fo. 12), though the seats then found in churches were, as is now the case in Continental churches, but a few loose and moveable ones, it is declared that even such a seat is "a nuisance" (see before, p. 359), as interfering with the right of " ease and standing" that belongs to the people: "for the church,” it says, "is in common to every one; and there is no reason why one should have a seat, and that two should stand: for no place in the church belongs more to one than to another;" while the parishioners "are not able to have their standing room on account of these seats." How much more, then, is this true with the modern pew system.

The historical facts as to pews, afford proof that no ecclesiastical authority has control over them; though there have been such frequent attempts and assertions in that direction. Lord Coke well says that "the ecclesiastical judges derive their jurisdiction by Parliament, and the custom of the realm”

LETTING SEATS OR PEWS, ILLEGAL.

411

The right to the use of a particular seat may be attached, by prescription, to a particular House in the parish. It never can attach to persons and their heirs. The being a parishioner, is an essential condition to the right to use any seat in the church. So soon as a man leaves the parish, he loses all right to use, or even to return to, his seat. And he can give no power, either by sale, rent, or license, to any one else to use it. Nor, so long as one parishioner is unaccommodated, who desires a seat, must the churchwardens allow any foreigner to the Parish to sit in the church.

In case of re-seating the church, it is usual, but certainly not necessary, to get a "Faculty" from the Ordinary. If this is done, it should, however, only be so on the vote of the Vestry. The granting of such faculty is admitted to depend, practically speaking, on the expressed wishes of the Vestry.* The Ordinary cannot, by any faculty or interference, deprive the parishioners of their right to use the seats, or grant any right to a non-parishioner, or any exclusive right to even a parishioner.

It is of great importance to remember that the sale or letting of pews in a Parish Church, whether by Churchwardens or by any holder of a seat by prescription, is altogether illegal. Nothing can legalize this;-unless, indeed, it be an Act of Parliament and any such Act of Parliament would be an absolutely revolutionary measure. Neither can a parishioner, to whom a seat has been assigned by the churchwardens, let it. The latter are bound, indeed, to take care that no such practice grows up. It is one of the marks of the disregard of principle which, in so many respects, characterizes the modern Church-Building (2 Inst. 488). They must in every case show its origin in one of these. The Statute of Circumspecte agatis does not include pews-for pews did not then exist. And there can be no "custom of the realm on the matter, as pews have only come into use long within the time of what is called “legal memory." See 2 Blackstone's Com. 31.

* In the latest case on this subject, (Bullen v. Parker and Parishioners of Great Baddow, Consistory Court of Rochester, Nov. 4, 1856,) this is, in effect, admitted by the counsel for all the three parties concerned.

† In vindication of the Constitution of England against such Revolutionary measures, I may, however, again quote Lord Coke; who tells us that, "in many cases, the Common Law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void for, when an Act of Parliament is against Common Right and reason, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void." (Reports, vol. viii. p. 118.) The same thing was declared by the Court, in a case in 1 Modern Reports, p. 212. See observations in the next Section, on the Common Right to every office of the Church.

Acts, that they admit of the letting of seats in the churches built under them. Thereby they do but further prove, that the “ecclesiastical districts” and “new parishes" which they establish, are merely sectarian arrangements.* Propositions have been made for legalizing the letting of seats in Parish churches. The moment this shall be done, the Church will lose every character of an Institution standing in any relation to the Parish as the Church of the People, and claiming, in that character, reverence, affection, and support from sincere men of all creeds and opinions. It will then cease to have any claim whatever, as a national establishment, on the reverence, affection, or support of any man.

* See before, pp. 38-43, 66 note. And see the note on pp. 40, 41, for the provisions and effect of the New Parishes Act, 1856" (19 & 20 Vict. c. 104) on the Common Right to the Offices of the Church, and the question of Pew rents. On the other hand, the Act of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 127, provides for the union of contiguous Benefices. (See also 17 Car. II. c. 3, and 4 W. & M. c. 12.) Happily, the foundation of action under the latter Act (see s. 2.), and so the principle which it recognizes, is exactly the opposite to that already shown to mark the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104-which was passed only one year later. Thus inconsistent is modern legislation. But how mischievous and discreditable is such inconsistency, and the empiricism and want of knowledge which it demonstrates!

SECTION VIII.

BURIAL.

AND THE COMMON RIGHT OF EVERY PARISHIONER IN ALL THE
OFFICES OF THE CHURCH.

THOUGH burial has been drawn within the range of ecclesiastical matters, yet, being a rite necessarily incident to humanity, it is proper shortly to notice the Common Right which exists in reference to it, and the provision which the Law has made for carrying it into effect.

"By the custom of England, every person (except such as are afterwards excepted) may at this day be buried in the churchyard of the parish where he dies, without paying anything for breaking the soil."*

Burial in his Parish Churchyard, without payment of any fee, is the Common Right of every Parishioner. Though the freehold of the churchyard is said to be in the parson, it is only, as in the case of the church, nominal; the parishioners have the absolute and exclusive right to the free use of it, for burial.

It is an unfortunate circumstance, that the office of Burial should have been ever attempted to be seized upon by the clergy, as a means of emolument. There can be no doubt that the receiving any fee for burial is absolutely illegal, both by the Ecclesiastical and Common Law. It involves, indeed, the heavy sin of Simony. The attempts at extortion in this respect, roused, long ago, the indignation and argumentative illustration of some of our ablest lawyers. A small work published by the learned and able Sir Henry Spelman (the defender of tythes) in 1641, under the title of "De Sepulturâ," treats the subject, though at no great length, quite exhaustively. He conclusively proves that the entire current

* Degge's 'Parson's Counsellor," p. 175. The exceptions are stated to be, "such persons as murder themselves, die excommunicated, die in any mortal sin, and sacrilegious persons."-Ib. p. 177.

+ William Prynne also, a writer not sufficiently appreciated in our day,