New England parson could boast, and when ministers' families of twelve
or fourteen children were far from unusual, it is no wonder that we find
frequent votes to "inlarge the ministers wives pew the breadth of the
alley," or to "take in the next pue to the ministers wives pue into her
pue." The seats in the gallery were universally regarded in the early
churches as the most exalted, in every sense, in the house, with the
exception, of course, of the dignity-bearing foreseat and the few private
pews.

It is easy to comprehend what a source of disappointed anticipation,
heart-burning jealousy, offended dignity, unseemly pride, and bitter
quarrelling this method of assigning scats, and ranking thereby, must have
been in those little communities. How the goodwivcs must have hated the
seating committee! Though it was expressly ordered, when the committee
rendered their decision, that "the inhabitants are to rest silent and
sett down satysfyed," who can still the tongue of an envious woman or an
insulted man? Though they were Puritans, they were first of all men and
women, and complaints and revolts were frequent. Judge Sewall records that
one indignant dame "treated Captain Osgood very roughly on account of
seating the meeting-house." To her the difference between a seat in the
first and one in the second row was immeasurably great. It was not alone
the Scribes and Pharisees who desired the highest seats in the synagogue.

It was found necessary at a very early date to "dignify the meeting,"
which was to make certain seats, though in different localities, equal in
dignity; thus could peace and contented pride be partially restored. For
instance, the seating committee in the Sutton church used their "best
discresing," and voted that "the third seat below be equal in dignity with
the foreseat in the front gallery, and the fourth seat below be equal in
dignity with the foreseat in the side gallery," etc., thus making many