"I fear so, indeed[109]. But now let me explain to you more fully what are the real evils of this wretched pew system. And first, as to the _private pew_--for, besides sharing in the evils of _all_ the rest, _it_ has some peculiarly its own. Of these, the _pride_ it fosters, and the '_respect of persons_,' so severely condemned by St. James, are the worst. My dear sir, I assure you it has often made my blood boil to see some poor old man with his venerable bare head exposed to the cold draught of a neglected part of the church, whilst a young, pampered son of fortune has been cushioned up under the stately canopy of his own pew[110]. Oh, sir, I'm sure you must agree with me that this is altogether against the spirit of Christianity! I'm no leveller _out of church_; the social distinctions must be there kept up; but _in God's House_ these should have no place at all. Then, surely, the _luxury_ of many of these private pews is altogether inconsistent with the object of our meeting in the House of Prayer. It is--as it shows the progress of luxury, and its concomitant, effeminacy--a curious circumstance, that when the custom of having pews in our churches began to spread, they were, by our hardy ancestors, considered as _too great indulgences_, and as temptations to repose. Their curtains and bed-furniture, their _cushions_ and _sleep_, have, by a long association of ideas, become intimately connected. The Puritans thought _pews_ the devil's _baby_, or _booby hutches_[111]. I have heard that in America they go even beyond us in the luxury of pews, and that in Boston some of them are actually lined with _velvet_[112]. I believe that both there and here the private pew system has done very much, not only to force the poor from the Church, but to drive many of all classes over to dissent." "I can't see how that can be," said the Baronet. Why, "naturally enough, sir, for they find all this the very opposite to what the Church professes to be and to teach. They see the rich exalted, and the poor debased; they find a house of pride, instead of a house of prayer. "The _exclusiveness_ of this system is one of the most curious as well as absurd features in its history. True, the change in our social habits has created a change for the better here; but much of the old temper survives. You would hardly believe, perhaps, that years ago it was not only considered an impropriety for the squire and the dame to sit in the same pew with any of their inferior fellow-worshippers, but the presence of their own children[113] was even considered an indecent intrusion. This was, indeed, ridiculous; but, in truth, the whole system would be monstrously grotesque, were it not so very wicked.