PETIT SERJEANTY. [SERJEANT.] PEW. The word pew seldom occurs in writers upon ecclesiastical law, who almost invariably use the expression " church seat" There were no pews in churches until about the period of the Reformation, prior to which the seats were moveable, such as chairs and benches, as we see at this time in the Roman Catholic churches on the Continent. Before that time no cases are to be found of claims to pews, although in the common-law books two or three claims are mentioned to seats in a church, or particular parts of a seat, which were probably moveable benches or forms.
"By the general law and of common right," Sir John Nicholl observed (in Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. Eccl. Rep., 425), "all the pews in a parish church are the common property of the parish ; they are for the use in common of the parishioners, who are all entitled to be seated orderly and conveniently so as best to provide for the accommodation of all." The right of appointing what per sons shall sit in each seat belongs to the ordinary (3 Inst., 202); and the church wardens, who are the officers of the or dinary, are to place the parishioners according to their rank and station ; but they are subject to his control if any complaint should be made against them." (Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill., 323.) A parishioner has a right to a seat in the church without any payment for it, and if he has cause of complaint in this respect against the churchwardens, he may cite them in the ecclesiastical court to show cause why they have not seated him properly ; and if there be persons occupy ing pews who are not inhabitants of the parish, they ought to be displaced in order to make room for him. This ge neral right however of the churchwardens as the officers of the ordinary is subject to certain exceptions, for private rights to pews may be sustained upon the ground of a faculty, or of prescription, which presumes a faculty.
The right by faculty arises where the ordinary or his predecessor has granted a licence or faculty appropriating certain pews to individuals. Faculties have varied in their form ; sometimes the ap propriation has been to a person and his family " so long as they continue inha bitants of a certain house in the parish :" the more modern form is to a man and his family " so long as they continue in habitants of the pdish" generally. The first of these is perhaps the least excep tionable form. (Sir J. Nicholl, 2 Add., 426.) Where a faculty exists, the ordinary cannot again interfere : it has however been laid down in the ecclesiastical court that where a party claiming by faculty ceases to be a parishioner, his right is determined. Sir John Nichol! states, " Whenever the occupant of a pew in the , body of the church ceases to be a pa rishioner, his rightto the pew,howsoever founded, and how valid soever during his continuance in the parish, at once ceases." (Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add., 427.) The same doctrine has been sanctioned by the Court of King's Bench. (Byerley v. Windus, 5 Barn. and Cress., 18.) But in a case in the Court of Exchequer, chief baron Macdonald was of a different opinion. The question there was whether
there could be in law a prescription for a person living out of the parish to have a pew in the body of the church, and it was held that there might (Lousley v. Hayward, 1 Y. and I., 583). As pre scription presumes a faculty, these opinions seem to be at variance. Where a claim to a pew is made by prescription as an nexed to a house, the question must be tried at law. The courts of common law in such cases exercise jurisdiction on the ground of the pew being an easement to the house (Mainwaring v. Giles, 5 Barn. and Ald., 361); and if the ecclesi astical courts proceed to try such pre scription, a prohibition would issue. In order to support a claim by prescription, occupancy must be proved, and also repair of the pew by the party, if any has been re quired. (Pettman v. Bridger, I Phill., 325; Rogers v. Brooks, I 7'. R., 431; Griffith v. Matthews, 5 T. R., 297.) The above observations apply to pews in the body of the church. With respect to seats in the chancel, it is stated in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, page 49, " the law has not been settled with equal certainty, and great inconvenience has been experienced from the doubts con tinued to be entertained. Some are of opinion that the churchwardens have no authority over pews in the chancel. Again, it has been said that the rector, whether spiritual or lay, has in the first instance at least a right to dispose of the seats; claims have also been set up on behalf of the vicar ; the extent of the ordinary's authority to remedy any undue arrangement with regard to such pews has been questioned.' (Gibson, 226 ; 3 Inst., 202; 1 Brown and Goul., Rep., 4; Griffith v. Matthews, 5 7'. R., 298; Clifford v. Wicks, I B. and Ad., 498; Morgan v. Curtis, 3 Man. and Ryl., 389 ; Rich v. Bushnell, 4 Hagg., Ecc. Rep.,164.) With regard to aisles or isles (wings) in a church, the case is different. The whole isle or particular seats in it may be claimed as appurtenant to an ancient mansion or dwelling-house, for the use of the occupiers of which the aisle is pre sumed to have been originally built. In order to complete this exclusive right it is necessary that it should have existed immemorially, and that the owners of the mansion in respect of which it is cl'aimed should from time to time have borne the expense of repairing that which they claim as having been set up by their pre decessors. (3 Inst., 202.) The purchasing or renting of pews in churches is contrary to the general eccle siastical law. (Walter v. Gunner and Drury, 1 Hagg., Consist. Rep., 314, and the cases referred to in the note, p. 318 ; Hawkins and Coleman v. Compeigne, 3 Phill., 16.) Pew-rents, under the church-building acts, are exceptions to the general law ; and where rents are taken in populous places, they are sanctioned by special acts of parliament. Pew-rents in private unconsecrated chapels do not fall under the same principle, such chapels being private property.