Our document of choice for this month's highlight is about a property dispute, but one that may seem strange to modern eyes. The document in question is what is known as a ‘pew dispute’ from 1677. For many centuries, parishioners in English churches would spend most of the service on their feet. However, soon the wealthy started bringing chairs, and being able to sit for church services became a great sign of status. This distinction between the classes risked being lost once pews became the norm, and so rich families decided to buy prime spaces in their local parish church where they could place their own, sometimes quite elaborate pews, thereby providing the church a good income whilst also ensuring that the rigid class structures were kept secure.

The two sides of this specific dispute are the Churchwardens of Warfield Parish and one John Brakes. Brakes claimed ownership of a pew, located at a prime space near the pulpit. The Churchwardens, however, countered this claim.

The case came before an arbiter and the churchwardens brought evidence in the form of a book of accounts from 1629 listing the pew as having been purchased for 1£-5s. However Brakes argued that the pew sold to him as part of an estate that belonged to John Marden, and before that to Sir Arnold Herbert, was seven foot in length, “wainscoted with oak” and “canot bee built under the sume of two pounds and five shillings”. Therefore, the pew described in the account books was not the same as the pew that he claimed ownership of.

The verdict came a week later. The story is a little hard to make out, but appears to go something like this: Sir Arnold Herbert, the original purchaser of the pew, at some point had a door installed in the side of the parish-owned pew immediately next to his private one, presumably allowing him a little more room and quicker access. While this was not done “with designe to wrong prejudice or encroach on the known rights of his neighbours and parishioners” it certainly caused some confusion, particularly after the pews and pulpit were temporarily removed for a remodelling of the church.

It seems that the creation of a door between the private and parish-owned pews led to a misconception that both were privately-owned, and when John Brakes purchased the pew as part of John Marden’s estate, he was under the mistaken impression that he was purchasing what was essentially an entire row of pews, when in fact he was purchasing just a single pew at the end of the row.

What is interesting about this story is the way in which it appears both very foreign and very familiar to modern audiences. Where one sat in church was once a key signifier of status, and so it would have made sense that any perceived infringement on this status symbol would be considered serious enough to invoke the law. Since the issue at hand now seems rather frivolous, it may be hard to relate to. However, it is really not that different from modern-day property disputes, particularly those that deal with competing claims between public and private landholders. It is important to note that the Churchwardens in this case were not claiming that they or even the church owned the pew – they were claiming it belonged to the parishioners, as a shared asset, and had the accounts book to prove it. In other words, this is a record of a group using their records or archives to prove a claim in a way that is not dissimilar to how records are used today.

Public records are as vital now as they were then in resolving property disputes. We frequently receive enquiries seeking evidence to prove or disprove claims of property ownership and rights of way. Such disputes always arise as boundaries that were once clearly defined inevitably become muddied over time, often as a result of frequent transfer of the property, or changes made to the property itself. Both occurred here: the disputed pew belonged to two people before coming to Brakes, and was subject to internal and external change (as it had a door installed and was moved around during a church renovation). None of this was clearly recorded when it happened, which is what led to the confusion and dispute. Fortunately, the Churchwardens were able to provide clarity thanks to their diligent bookkeeping. This pew dispute demonstrates a record’s ability to clarify the murky waters of time, and settle disputes between private and public parties peaceably.