Transcribed from the 1857 William Skeffington edition by David Price.
Many thanks to the British Library for making their copy available.





                    The Truth about Church Extension:


                               AN EXPOSURE
                                OF CERTAIN
                       FALLACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS
                                CONTAINED
                          IN THE CENSUS REPORTS
                                    ON
                     RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND EDUCATION.

                                * * * * *

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                  WILLIAM SKEFFINGTON, 163, PICCADILLY.

                                  1857.

                           PRICE ONE SHILLING.




PREFACE.


The entire absence of criticism on the decennial tables contained in the
report of Mr. Horace Mann on the Census of Religious Worship has filled
the writer with equal surprise and concern.  For a period of nearly three
years, hardly a week has passed without some injurious step on the part
of the Government, some disastrous admission on the part of a friend,
some daring rhodomontade on the part of a foe—all of which have owed
their origin more or less directly to the false and mistaken view of the
Church’s position engendered by the still more erroneous and misleading
statistics so widely disseminated by the Census report.  Nor is there any
prospect that the evil will diminish—at least, until the next Census.  On
the contrary, the idea that the Church has proved a failure seems to gain
strength, and the policy of friends and foes alike appears to shape
itself with special reference to that assumed fact.

The writer does not wish to obtrude upon the public his own calculations
as if they were absolutely correct; but he is satisfied that the account
he has given of the _relative_ growth of Church and Dissent during the
past half century is, if anything, an understatement so far as the former
is concerned.  Had Mr. Bright’s very remarkable return fallen sooner in
his way he would probably have much modified his estimate relating to
Dissent; but, as the case was already sufficiently strong for the main
object he had in view, namely, to demonstrate the monstrous fallacy of
the official report, he did not think it worth while to alter his
calculations.  His own conviction, however, is that the gross number of
additional sittings supplied by Dissent is much more accurately
represented by the table given in page 24 than by that in page 20.

The Census report on Education offers a tempting subject for remark; but
the writer has not thought it necessary to go further into the matter
than he has done in the note on page 27.  For the reasons there stated,
it will appear that there are no grounds whatever for asserting that the
parents of this country neglect to provide their children with the means
of instruction any more than they neglect to provide them with food or
clothing.  In every class which by any stretch of the term can be called
“respectable,” parents do supply their children with what they consider a
sufficient education; and their idea of what is sufficient is, after all,
not much lower, everything considered, than prevails amongst the middle
classes, who, in a country like this, must always fix the standard.  The
result of the Census goes to show that the Legislature has adopted the
right course—that the way to obtain as large a number of attendants at
school as possible is to subsidise, not to supersede, private exertion;
and that it is even possible to fix the rate of subsidy too high; for all
experience proves that parents will not enforce regular attendance,
unless they feel that if their children stay away from school they will
not receive something for which they have paid.  Whether the Government
ought to hold its hand until children of a certain class are brought to
the prison schoolmaster is quite another and a different question; for it
is clear that under any circumstances those unfortunates must be treated
in an exceptional manner.  Even if we had a national system, children
belonging to “the dangerous classes” would not be admitted to the common
schools; for no respectable person, however humble, would allow his sons
or his daughters to associate with the offspring of habitual thieves or
beggars.

It is proper to add, in order to account for certain local illustrations,
which it has been thought advisable to retain, that the substance of the
following pages first appeared in a somewhat different form in the
_Nottingham Journal_.

_December_, 1856.




THE TRUTH, &c.


AMONG the many changes which the present age has witnessed, none are more
remarkable than those we have seen take place in the public mind with
regard to the Church of this country.

Thirty or forty years ago, the popular estimate of what was called the
Established Religion was as low as can well be conceived.  The laity, for
the most part, regarded Churchmanship as a mere empty tradition, or at
best as a political symbol, and an excuse for lusty choruses in praise of
“a jolly full bottle.”  The Clergy, unless they were grievously maligned,
had but two objects in life—the acquirement of “fat livings,” and the
enjoyment of amusements not now considered clerical.  Of course, there
never was a time when there were not hundreds of exemplary persons in
holy orders; but that the prevailing impression was wholly without
foundation it would take a bold man to affirm.  The worldliness of the
Clergy of the eighteenth century has even left its mark on the language.
The word “curate” literally means a “curé”—a person charged with the cure
of souls, one that has the spiritual care of a parish.  Such is its
meaning in the Prayer Book, and such was its signification down to the
last “Review”; but now it has come to mean only a hireling, or an
assistant.  In like manner, “Parson” was the most honourable title a
parochial clergyman could possess; and that, no doubt, continued to be
the case so late as the time of George Herbert.  The beneficed Clergy
under the Hanoverian dynasty, however, so conducted themselves, that the
term is now never used, except by those who wish to speak disrespectfully
of the profession, or of some individual belonging to it.

It would be wrong, perhaps, to hold the Clergy entirely responsible for
the sad phase through which we have lately passed.  That they were what
they were was “more their misfortune than their fault.”  At the worst,
they were probably better than the rest of the community, and, save when
by a persecution to the death the Church is forced into a position of
direct antagonism to the world, it would be idle to expect it to be much
in advance of the age.  The short reign of the Puritans so confounded
religion with cant that at the Restoration it had come to be thought a
sort of virtue to be ungodly.  The Church set itself manfully to resist
the evil, and no doubt it would soon have been successful; but,
unfortunately, the Nonjuring difficulty supervened.  Now, it is the
misery of a crisis of that description, that the community in which it
occurs suffers every way.  The men whose labours it actually loses are
necessarily amongst the most conscientious, and, therefore, the most
valuable, of its ministers; and those who stay behind have their
usefulness impaired by the stigma which is cast upon their motives.  For,
if there are two men under precisely the same obligations, and one of
them feels compelled for conscience’ sake to surrender all his worldly
prospects, people will never be persuaded that the other, who does not
follow the same example, has not sacrificed his convictions to his
material interests.  We have seen many instances in our own time in which
this has occurred.  Even at this moment many good Churchmen are
reproached with a love of filthy lucre because they do not follow a few
who once thought with them, but who have apostatized from the faith of
their fathers; whereas, if there be a man in the world to whom secession
under any pretext is impossible it is the consistent Anglican—the
distinguishing tenet of whose school is the spiritual equality of
bishops, and the consequent indefeasible authority of that episcopal line
which has from time immemorial been in possession of a given country.  In
England, the existing Romanist succession was avowedly created by a Papal
bull in the year 1850; and it is, therefore, on the face of it, an
intrusion, and a usurpation of the rights which are inherent in the
representatives of St. Austin and St. Anselm.  Yet, because a few
Anglicans have become Ultramontanists—a step which involved to them as
distinct a giving up of all their former principles as it would have been
for a Catholic to become a Socinian—the “High Church” clergy are reviled
for retaining their benefices, and declining to follow the footsteps of a
Faber and a Newman!  In like manner, we may be sure that those Clergymen
who conscientiously felt that they might withdraw their allegiance from
King James, reaped a loss of influence for good, even among the partisans
of King William.  Close upon the Nonjuring troubles followed the
scandalous attempt of the Hanoverian Government to undermine the faith of
the Church by means of improper episcopal appointments, its resistance by
the inferior clergy, and the consequent suppression of Convocation.  The
mischief to which this most unconstitutional step has given rise can
hardly be overrated.  We can scarcely conceive the confusion and
corruption which would creep into the body politic if Parliament were
forcibly silenced for a whole century; and there is no reason why the
English Church should prosper without representative institutions and
free speech any more than the English nation.  Under any circumstances,
the Church, deprived of her parliament, must have greatly suffered; much
more so in the face of those vast changes which have come about in the
extent and distribution of the population.  The machinery of the existing
Church Establishment was designed for a population of five or six million
souls.  By 1821 the inhabitants of this country had increased to twelve
millions.  A new population exceeding the old one had thus been
introduced, for which the Church as a body had no means of providing a
single additional bishop or a single new sitting.  Had the increase been
evenly spread over the country the mischief would not have been so great;
but, unfortunately, the new population chose all kinds of out-of-the-way
places in which to settle.  A rural parish suddenly found itself a
metropolis; and a district, once traversed only by the shepherd or the
ploughboy, became the teeming hive of manufacturing industry.  In such a
state of things the parochial system—perfect as it is where the Church
has wholly subdued a country—miserably broke down.  A signal failure was
in fact inevitable; for what were the solitary parish priests of
Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, St. Pancras, St. Marylebone,
Islington, or Lambeth, amongst so many!  For all practical purposes it
may be asserted that at least half of the new population were as much
beyond the reach of the Church of England as if they had settled in the
woods of Canada or on the plains of Hindostan.  Year after year the evil
went on increasing, until at last the number of Englishmen who did not
belong to the Established Church became so great that a Parliament of
Churchmen were obliged to surrender their exclusive right of legislation
and government.  The prospects of the Church were at this time truly
deplorable.  Its very existence as an establishment was doubtful.  The
Whig Premier actually bade the bishops “set their house in order;” and
the experiment of confiscation was begun.  Humanly speaking it was only
the difficulty of disposing of the plunder that saved the Church of these
realms.

The hour of danger, however, was not of long duration.  A new school of
theologians arose, who boldly asserted that the Church was not a creature
of the State, to be dealt with at the pleasure or convenience of
politicians, but a Divine institution, with laws, privileges, and a
polity of its own; and that the duty of extending its usefulness belonged
to individual exertions not less than to the Legislature.  The effect of
this new teaching, as it then appeared, was electric.  Churchmen no
longer sat with hands folded in blank despair, or amused themselves with
irrefutable demonstrations that Parliament ought to do something.  They
set to work themselves.  Sometimes it was the clergy who stimulated the
laity; sometimes it was the laity who applied a gentle compulsion to the
clergy.  Churches, parsonages, and schools began to spring up in every
direction, with a rapidity that would have borne comparison with the
palmiest days of the mediæval builders.  The ancient indigenous
architecture of the country, and its cognate arts, were in a manner
rediscovered, and were brought to a perfection scarcely less than that
attained by the greatest masters of antiquity.  Indeed, the spread of
this new science of ecclesiology has been not the least marvel of the
present century.  It has pervaded every part of the community; it has
slain outright the bastard classicalism of the Age of Pigtail; and it has
reproduced itself in the Puginism of the Romanists, and the Ruskinism of
Dissent.  It has even crossed the Channel, and appeared in the very
centre of European taste—in Paris itself—the fount and origin of the
whole vast movement being the work of church-building and restoration in
this country, which has proved a school of art more effective, because on
an infinitely larger scale, than any which modern times have witnessed.

All this has been, moreover, but the symbol of a greater and yet more
gratifying change—the gradual rehabilitation of the Church’s character.
Never since the Reformation did it occupy so high a position as that to
which it had attained two or three years ago.  Old scandals, and old
epithets of abuse founded upon them, had alike disappeared.  We read of
Parson Trulliber with much the same feeling of incredulous amazement as
we perused the accounts of Professor Owen’s extinct monsters; and we
should have looked upon the person who indulged in the sort of
Billingsgate which was common half a century ago as if another Rip Van
Winkle had stood before us.  The ingenious calculations in which
demagogues of the last generation used to indulge, with regard to what
might be done with the ecclesiastical revenues, seemed like prospectuses
of the South Sea Company.  The very Horsmans, like their Puritan
prototypes who made war on the King in the King’s name, had begun to
profess a desire only to increase the Church’s efficiency.  The
Anti-State-Church Society itself, borne away by the spirit of the times,
adopted a clumsy euphemism for its old out-spoken title.  It no longer
sought to destroy “the State Church”—its object was the “Liberation of
Religion from State Patronage and Control.”

Once more, alas! the sky has changed.  What the public now think of the
Church, it would be difficult exactly to say; but that a strong re-action
has set in, it would be vain to deny.  There seems to be an impression
abroad that the Church has been taking credit for far more than she was
entitled to; that she has had a last trial allowed her, whether she would
regain her place as the Church of the people; that her day of grace has
passed, and that she has been found wanting.  Political Dissent, which
had fallen into a state of such ludicrous obscurity, has suddenly
revived, and in a Parliament elected under Lord Derby has achieved what
it could never do even in the worst times which followed the passing of
the Reform Bill—it has effected a lodgment in the Universities.  It has
several times carried resolutions adverse to Churchrates.  The demands of
Mr. Pellatt are now granted almost as a matter of course; and not only
so, but the very Government goes out of its way to flatter the prejudices
of the Nonconformist.  Thus, the Solicitor-General brings in a
Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, which would saddle the country with an
enormous annual charge in the shape of compensations; the sole object
being to afford Dissenters the gratification of reading at the
commencement of their probates the words “Victoria, by the Grace of God,
Queen,” instead of “John Bird, by Divine Providence, Archbishop.”  Some
of the concessions which have been made to “the rights of conscience” are
absolutely ludicrous.  For example, young ladies and gentlemen of the
different denominations complain that ill-natured people call their
weddings “workhouse marriages.”  A remedy is instantly found, at the risk
of establishing a Gretna Green in every Dissenting place of worship.  In
a word, the Legislature seems to say to Dissent “Ask and have.”  Very
different is the tone both of Parliament and of the Executive, towards
the Church.  The prayer of the Convocation for permission to reform its
constitution is, notwithstanding the plighted faith of the Crown,
peremptorily refused.  The Royal Letters on behalf of the Church
Societies are stopped; the bill drawn up by the bishops to enfranchise
the Colonial Church is rejected.  It is perhaps hardly worth while to
speak of various shabby acts with regard to money votes, such as the
withdrawal of the grants to the Bishop of New Zealand and to the Scottish
Church; but the animus which dictated them is only too obvious.  After
all, however, the saddest evidence that the public feeling has undergone
a great change is to be found in the Education Bill of Sir John
Pakington.  Every one knows how fast the Church was becoming, in fact,
what she is in theory, the instructress of the people; and till lately no
Churchman could have been found to suggest any material alteration in a
system which was bringing forth such gratifying fruits.  Suddenly,
however, Sir John is seized with a panic.  The task appears in his eyes
to be utterly hopeless, and he brings in a bill which would have
destroyed the distinctive character of Church schools, and would have
deprived Churchmen of all share (save that of paying school taxes) in the
education of every district in which they could not command an absolute
majority!

That the Church is inefficient, every one now seems to take for
granted—the only matter in dispute is, what has been the cause?  Of
course the fault is always laid at the door of the Clergy; but it is
amusing to observe the perplexity which appears to be felt as to the
manner in which the indictment against them should be framed.  Sometimes
the charge is that they cannot preach—just as if orators were a whit more
plentiful at the bar or in the senate, on the stage or in the Dissenting
pulpit.  Sometimes we are told that the Clergy are not abler men because
they are not better paid.  We have actually lived to see it stated by the
_Times_, that the Clergy of the Church of England—the men who a few short
years ago were reported to be rolling in wealth—are worse rewarded in
this life than persons belonging to any other profession whatever!

The object of the present essay is to strike at the very first step in
the _sorites_—to show that the Church, since the great revival, so far
from having proved a failure, has proved herself more than equal to the
situation; and finally to point out how grievously both the public and
the Legislature have been deceived by the data which have been published
for their guidance.

It need hardly be observed that the unfavourable impression to which
allusion has been made has been entirely created by Mr. Horace Mann’s
Report on the Census of Religious Worship.  That report has been assailed
by the Bishop of Oxford, and other right reverend prelates; but their
strictures, it is respectfully submitted, do not go quite to the point.
It is not the account given of the present relative positions of Church
and Dissent which has done the mischief.  Every one knew that the Church
was strongest in the country and Dissent in the towns; and seeing that
the rural and the urban population were about equal, the public could
scarcely be surprised to learn that the two bodies were also of nearly
equal strength.  According to the census, the Church had in 1851,
5,317,915 sittings, and the Dissenters 4,894,648; but the Bishop of
Oxford has shown that there are good reasons for believing that the
Church sittings have been unfairly diminished, while those belonging to
Dissenters have been much exaggerated.  On that point the writer will
only add that the number of sittings assigned to the Churches in the
tables relating to one large town, the only one he has had occasion to
verify, is not above three-fourths of the real amount.

The total number of attendants at Church on the census morning was
2,541,244, against 2,106,238 in the meeting-houses.  Now, without
pressing any objection that might be made to these figures on the score
of dishonesty in the returns, it must be obvious that they do not fairly
represent the average attendance.  In the first place, such institutions
as the colleges at the Universities are not taken into account.  In the
next place, no reference is made to such places as the workhouses, in
most of which service is performed by a chaplain, and from which the
dissenting inmates are allowed to attend the meeting-houses of their
respective communities.  Thirdly, the weather on the census Sunday was
very inclement, and while the attendance generally would, no doubt, be
less than an average, the effect would, beyond all controversy, be much
more felt in Churches than in meeting-houses.  The strength of the
Church, it has already been said, is in the country, and it is quite a
different thing in bad weather to walk a few hundred yards along a
well-paved street, and to trudge a mile down a muddy lane.  Fourthly, the
attendants at all the morning masses in Roman Catholic chapels are
returned, whereas it is well known that devout persons of that persuasion
often “assist” at more than one mass on the same morning.  Those persons
have thus been counted twice over.  Lastly, the day on which the census
was taken was Mid-Lent Sunday, on which rustics in the northern counties
are accustomed to pay visits to their friends instead of attending Divine
service.  That, in its degree, would also act unfavourably on the
church-going of the census Sunday.  If, therefore, we said that on
ordinary occasions there were three quarters of a million more people at
church on Sunday mornings in 1851 than in all the dissenting places of
worship put together, we should probably not be overstating the case; and
there would certainly be nothing in a state of things like that to
account for any alteration in the public sentiment.

When, however, we come to look at the statements made as to the relative
_progress_ of the two bodies during the last half century our wonder at
the change which has taken place in public opinion ceases.  The following
results, compiled from Tables 5 and 13 of Mr. Mann’s Report, will exhibit
at a glance the amount of population and the number of sittings in 1801,
as well as the subsequent increase at each decennial period since then:—

              Population.      Church      Dissenting      Total
                             Sittings.     Sittings.     Sittings.
1801             8,892,536     4,289,883       881,240     5,171,123
The subsequent increase was as follows:—
1811             1,271,720        24,305       328,720       353,225
1821             1,835,980        42,978       527,160       570,138
1831             1,896,561       124,525       788,080       912,605
1841             2,017,351       293,945     1,253,600     1,547,545
1851             2,013,461       542,079     1,115,848     1,657,927
Total            9,035,073     1,028,032     4,013,408     5,041,440
Increase
Total           17,927,609     5,317,915     4,894,648    10,212,562

So that during the last ten years, while the Church was supposed to be
making unheard-of exertions, the amount of new accommodation she really
provided was not one-half of that supplied by the dissenting bodies!  The
Wesleyan sects alone provided no less than 630,498 sittings, against the
542,079 found by the Church!  The case may be made yet more clear from
the following table, which exhibits the number of sittings provided at
each period for every thousand of the population:—

            Church.      Dissent.      Total.
1801              482            99         581
1811              424           120         544
1821              363           145         508
1831              323           181         504
1841              300           238         538
1851              297           273         570

So that while the Church has lost 185 sittings, Dissent has gained 174.
In other words, the Church has experienced a total relative loss of 359
sittings per thousand of the population during the last 50 years.  Even
since 1831 her loss, as compared with Dissent, has not been less than 118
per thousand!

Comment on this would be superfluous.  If such be really the state of the
case it would be idle to waste time in wrangling over inaccuracies in the
returns.  If Dissent is gaining on the Church at the rate of 50,000,
sittings per year, whatever may be wrong in the present totals must soon
be corrected; and the Church must make up its mind, ere long, to sink
down into a minority.

The only question is, does the Census Report state the truth?  _It does
not_.  On the contrary, it states the very reverse of the truth.  It is
not merely inaccurate, but altogether false.  Mr. Mann’s figures—although
they have hitherto been accepted on all sides as if they were “proofs of
Holy Writ”—rest upon no positive data whatever.  So far, indeed, are they
from possessing any claim upon the confidence of the public, the smallest
effort of common sense, the most transient recollection of principles
laid down by the immortal Cocker, would have warned Mr. Mann that the
process he has adopted could not possibly lead to a correct result.

It appears that as soon as the 30,610 districts into which the country
was divided for the purposes of the census had been marked out, the
enumerator in each was directed to return to the head office a list of
all the places of worship within his jurisdiction.  The result was to
obtain information respecting 14,077 churches or chapels, and 20,390
dissenting meetings.  Circulars were then sent out to the clergy, the
ministers, or other official persons, requesting to know, amongst other
things, the number of attendants on Sunday, the 30th of March, 1851, the
number of sittings, and the date at which the building was erected, or
first appropriated to religious worship (if since 1801).  The report adds
that—“When delivering the schedules to the proper parties, the
enumerators told them it was not compulsory upon them to reply to the
inquiries; but that their compliance with the invitation was entirely
left to their own sense of the importance and the value to the public of
the information sought.”  As might have been expected there were very
many instances in which no returns were made.  These instances were
“principally places of worship in connexion with the Church of
England,—several of the clergy having entertained some scruples about
complying with an invitation not proceeding from episcopal authority.  In
all such cases, a second application was made direct from the
Census-office, and this generally was favoured by a courteous return of
the particulars desired.  The few remaining cases were remitted to the
registrar, who either got the necessary information from the secular
officers of the church, or else supplied, from his own knowledge, or from
the most attainable and accurate sources, an estimate of the number of
sittings and of the usual congregation.”  After all, the number of
sittings could not be obtained in 2,134 cases, the number of attendants
in 1,004, and the number either of sittings or attendants in 390.

With regard to the tables more immediately under notice, namely those
which profess to show the comparative progress of Church and Dissent
during the last half-century, the mode of proceeding was as follows:—The
buildings were first of all arranged under six heads—those erected or
appropriated to religious purposes prior to 1801, and those erected or so
appropriated during five subsequent periods.  Thus:—

Built before           Churches.    Meeting Houses.     Total.
1801                         9,667             3,427      13,094
1811                            55             1,169       1,224
1821                            97             1,905       2,002
1831                           276             2,865       3,141
1841                           667             4,199       4,866
1851                         1,197             4,397       5,594
Dates not assigned           2,118             2,428       4,546

Mr. Mann’s next step was to distribute the last line amongst the six
previous ones, “according to the proportion which the number actually
assigned to each of the intervals bears towards the total having dates
assigned at all.”  Multiplying the results so arrived at by the present
average number of sittings in churches (377), and by that in Dissenting
meeting houses (240), Mr. Mann obtained two tables (5 and 13) of which
the following is a summary:—

      Churches.     Sittings.  Meeting Houses.    Sittings.     Total         Total
                                                              Buildings.    Sittings.
1801   11,379     4,289,883             3,701       881,240     15,080     5,171,123
1811   11,444     4,314,388             5,046     1,209,960     16,490     5,524,348
1821   11,558     4,357,366             7,238     1,737,120     18,796     6,094,486
1831   11,883     4,481,891            10,530     2,525,200     22,413     7,207,091
1841   12,668     4,775,836            15,319     3,778,800     28,017     8,554,636
1851   14,077     5,317,915            20,390     4,894,648     34,467    10,212,563
                                                                                            {11}

It would be uncandid not to state that Mr. Mann admits this estimate to
be open to some objection.  His words are:—“It is probable that an
inference as to the position of affairs in former times can be drawn from
the dates of existing buildings with more correctness in the ease of the
Church of England, as the edifices are more permanent and less likely to
change hands than are the buildings used by the dissenters.  Still there
is a possibility that too great an amount of accommodation has been
ascribed to the earlier periods.”  The tables are, therefore, to be taken
with a “certain degree of qualification from this cause.”  With respect
to the Nonconformists, he observes in a note:—“In 1801, according to the
estimate from dates, * * * the Dissenters had only 3,701 buildings.
This, however, is scarcely probable, and seems to prove that many
Dissenters’ buildings, existing in former years, have since become
disused, or have been replaced by others.  As so much depends upon the
extent to which this disuse and substitution have prevailed, these
calculations, in the absence of any facts upon those points, must
necessarily be open to some doubts.”  Now, it may be taken for granted
that no one reading these very mild qualifications would suppose that
they were intended to cover any serious error.  Everybody would conclude
that the mere fact of Mr. Mann’s tables appearing in a grave public
document was a guarantee that they were in the main correct.  Indeed, the
suspicion that they were not perfectly trustworthy never seemed to have
entered into anyone’s head.  The Society for the Liberation of Religion
lost no time in issuing a manifesto grounded upon them, and the
dissenting prints have dwelt on them with great emphasis.  Thus the
_Patriot_, some time ago, declared, with a sort of oath, that “as surely
as the morrow’s sun would rise,” so surely would Dissent be in a majority
at the next census.  On the faith of these tables, too, Mr. Hadfield
announced, at the close of last session, that a spirit was growing up
which would not much longer tolerate such an abomination as a religious
establishment; and Mr. Gurney, in his sermon at the consecration of the
Bishops of Gloucester and Christchurch, admitted that Dissent was gaining
ground.

Proceeding, without further comment, to examine the Tables in detail, it
must be remarked that Mr. Mann’s formula for distributing the dateless
buildings is open to very strong objections.  It is not, however,
necessary to enter upon those objections at this point, because the
operation of the rule with regard to the churches (which shall be dealt
with first) happens by accident to be very nearly right—the number
assigned to the year 1831 corresponding pretty closely with the number
arrived at by the census inquiries in that year.  Mr. Mann’s next step,
however, is begging the question with a vengeance.  The circumstance that
churches now-a-days contain on the average 377 sittings, affords not the
least ground for supposing that the average capacity of churches was 377,
fifty years ago.  On the contrary, it is absolutely impossible, from the
nature of church extension in modern times, that the average should have
remained stationary.  First of all, everybody knows that churches in
large towns are, generally speaking, much more spacious than those in the
rest of the country; and unless, therefore, the proportion of large town
and country churches has remained exactly the same, the general average
capacity of churches must have been disturbed.  Mr. Mann’s Table 14
deprives him of any excuse he might have had for overlooking this obvious
fact.  From that table we learn that there were in 1851:—

                              Churches.      Sittings.
In large town districts             3,457      1,995,729
In residue of the country          10,620      3,322,186
                                   14,077      5,317,915

—exactly the same as in the general table given above.  In 1801, however,
matters were different.  There were then—

                              Churches.      Sittings.
In large town districts             2,163      1,248,702
In residue of the country           9,216      2,882,983
                                   11,379      4,131,685

The number of churches is the same as in the general table, but the
number of sittings is less by 158,198.  The discrepancy, however, is soon
explained.  The average capacity of the larger town churches is 577
sittings, or 200 above the general average, while that of the country
churches is 312, or only 65 less; and, while as many as 1,294 new
buildings of the former class have been erected, the number of the latter
class has only been 1,404.  On Mr. Mann’s own showing, therefore, his
principle is erroneous, and his Table 13 has cheated the Church of nearly
160,000 sittings.  But this is by no means the whole of the injustice of
which he has been guilty.  Not merely have there been more churches built
in large towns than is consistent with maintaining the old average on the
country at large, but the new structures both in town and country are of
far greater dimensions than those anciently erected.  An Englishman is
not naturally fond of large communities of any kind.  He has a passion
for privacy; and his pet phrases are “snug,” “nice little,” “not
numerous, but select.”  This feeling breaks out in everything.  Take the
matter of lodging.  Abroad, many families club together, and occupy a
mansion.  The plan has been tried in this country; but it meets with
little success.  Most men would regard themselves as “flats” indeed, if
they put up with a floor when they could get a house; and working men
regard model lodging-houses as little better than barracks, or, as they
still term them, “bastiles.”  So in ecclesiastical arrangements, John
Bull, looking upon the parish as but an extension of the family, cannot
have it too little for his taste.  Abroad, the parish is regarded more in
the light of a city within a city; and hence parochial churches on the
continent were always less numerous and far larger than was anciently the
case in this country.  Even when we had large churches they were not
fitted up for many worshippers—size being regarded more a matter of
dignity than of practical utility.  London, before the Great Fire, with
its vast cathedral, and its hundred and ten parish churches; or Norwich,
with its spacious minster, and its forty churches, fairly represent the
true English idea.  In modern times, however, we are forced to act
differently.  The sudden increase of population, and the utter
unpreparedness of the Church to grapple with the difficulty, have
produced an emergency of which our forefathers had no experience.  We
adopt the continental custom from sheer necessity, just as in London a
third of the population are obliged, though much against their will, to
live in lodgings.  We build our churches large because that is the
cheapest mode of supplying our immediate wants.  The two systems may be
well illustrated by contrasting Norwich, with its 41 churches and 17,000
sittings, with Manchester, which has 32 churches and 44,000 sittings; or
by comparing the City with its 73 churches and 42,000 sittings with the
Tower Hamlets which have 65 churches and 68,000 sittings.  The census
tables contain many materials for an inferential argument with regard to
the size of our new churches, but it is hardly necessary to pursue the
matter further, because we have ample direct evidence bearing upon the
point.  The Metropolis Church Building Society has assisted in the
erection of 85 churches, which contain 106,000 sittings, or an average of
1,247 each.  The Church Building Commissioners have aided 520 churches,
and have thus assisted in providing 565,780 sittings, which would give an
average of 1,088 each.  Even Mr. Mann himself admits, with amusing
_naïveté_, that “for many reasons the churches in large towns are
constructed of considerable size, and rarely with accommodation for less
than 1,000 persons!”  [Report page clxii.]  Precisely the same reasoning
will apply to the Church extension of the rural districts; and the reader
who has duly weighed the facts just stated will be little disposed to
doubt that in both cases the average size of modern churches is at least
double that of the churches which were in existence prior to 1801.  On
that hypothesis it would be found by an easy arithmetical problem that
the capacity of town churches, in 1801, was 420 sittings, and of country
ones, 276.  The increase in the former class would thus have been
1,086,960 sittings, and in the latter 775,008—making together 1,861,968.
Probably it was much more; but at all events the calculation omits a very
important element, namely, the new sittings which have been obtained by
the enlargement or the re-arrangement of old fabrics.  From the
statistics of above a score of Church Building Societies, it would appear
that for every additional structure at least two old ones are rebuilt or
enlarged.  There must thus have been at least 5,000 of these cases; and
though there are no accessible data on which to calculate the amount of
new accommodation in this manner afforded, it must have been very
considerable.

On the whole, therefore, we may safely adopt the statistics of the
Incorporated Society for Building and Enlarging Churches as our guide.
This society has laboured impartially for the advantage of town and
country; and up to the year 1851 it had assisted in erecting 884 new
churches, and in rebuilding or enlarging 2,174 old ones.  The total
amount of new sittings it had thus been instrumental in providing was
835,000; so that each new church would _represent_ an increase of
accommodation to the extent of 944 sittings.  As, however, the society
probably assisted the more urgent cases, it would perhaps be safer to
assume that each new church has only represented an increase of 850 new
sittings—in other words, that the new churches not assisted by the
society represent about 800 each.  The result will then be as follows:—

                       No. of Churches.       Sittings.
1801                                11,379      3,024,615
                   Decennial increase:
1811                                    65         55,250
1821                                   114         96,900
1831                                   325        276,250
1841                                   785        667,250
1851                                 1,409      1,197,650
Total Increase                       2,698      2,293,300
Total                               14,077      5,317,915

Turning now to the Dissenting tables, we shall find that Mr. Mann’s
formula leads to still more absurd results than when it is applied to the
churches.  It has, however, the curious felicity of operating in the two
cases in a manner diametrically opposite; for while it robs the Church of
more than half the new accommodation which she has provided, it
obligingly credits Dissent with about the same number of sittings, to
which it has not the ghost of a claim.

It is the proper place to offer here a few remarks upon the mode which
has been adopted for distributing the dateless buildings amongst the six
periods.  Every one is, of course, aware that in many cases “there is
much virtue” in an average.  In such problems as determining the number
of letters which will be posted in a given year without being addressed,
it operates with almost infallible certainty.  But it must be clear that
2,428 out of 20,390 places could not have been returned without dates by
mere accident.  In a large proportion of cases the omission must have
been intentional; and it is obvious that those cases would include very
few new buildings.  The enumerators, being all persons possessed of local
knowledge, could have had no difficulty in determining whether a building
had or had not been erected within the last ten, twenty, or thirty years.
It would only be in cases where the structure was of what is called in
ladies’ sometimes “a certain,” sometimes “an uncertain” age, that they
would be unable to ascertain when it was erected or appropriated to
public worship.  The number of such instances would bear no relation
whatever to the number having dates assigned.  The case is wholly beyond
the province of the Rule of Three; and to attempt to adjust the table by
means of proportion is, on the face of it, unfair.  Out of the 2,118
dateless churches, no fewer than 1,712 are relegated to the number of
those erected before 1801, whereas of the 2,428 dateless meeting-houses,
only 465 would be placed in the same category.  In point of fact,
however, there are not so many; for Mr. Mann has hit on a plan, which is
a miracle of perverse ingenuity, in order to make the growth of Dissent
during the half century look larger than ever.  Ninety-nine persons out
of a hundred would have applied the rule first to the churches, then to
the meeting-houses, and then they would have added the results together.
Mr. Mann has adopted precisely the opposite course.  He has, first of
all, dealt with the total column, then with the Church, and he has lastly
subtracted the one set of results from the other.  The consequence is he
has assigned no more than 274 of the dateless meeting-houses to the
period before 1801.  The total number he has distributed amongst the
first three periods is only 737, whereas he has divided no fewer than
1,691 amongst the last three.  It need scarcely be said that all the
probabilities would be all in favour of reversing the process.

At the outset, therefore, Mr. Mann’s estimate comes before us under
circumstances of extreme suspicion; but, granting, for the sake of
argument, that his distribution of the existing meeting-houses were
correct, it must be obvious that any inference from dates would be
preposterous unless we could be certain that there were no buildings in
existence at the earlier periods, other than those included in the table.
It has been seen that Mr. Mann has not overlooked this circumstance.  He
admits that the small number assigned to 1801 “seems to prove that many
dissenters’ buildings existing in former years have since become disused
or have been replaced by others;” but no one would suspect from this
statement the vast number of these disused buildings.  Take, for example,
the case of Nottingham.  From Mr. Wylie’s local history it would appear
that of the 29 meeting-houses returned to the Census Office, only six
dated back to the commencement of the present century.  In other words,
dissent in Nottingham, on Mr. Mann’s hypothesis, all but quintupled
itself during the 50 years.  In point of fact, however, there were, not
six, but thirteen or fourteen, dissenting congregations in 1801, and
probably several more whose “memorial has perished with them.”

The absurdity of the Census estimate may be still further illustrated by
a reference once more to Tables 6 and 14.  Those tables are to Mr. Mann’s
calculation not very different from the proof of an addition sum.  If his
estimate were right they would agree with Tables 5 and 13; but instead of
doing so, they lead to the following astounding results:—In 1851, there
were in the

                     Meeting Houses.     Sittings.        Average
                                                         Sittings.
Large town                      6,129      2,131,515         347 each.
districts
Residue of country             14,261      2,763,133             193 „

This is, of course, quite correct.  But now see what the tables say of
1801—

                     Meeting Houses.   Sittings.      Average
                                                      Sittings.
Large town                      1,337        258,220         193 each.
districts
Residue of country              2,634        781,218             330 „

The late Mr. Hume’s emphatic appreciation of a certain “modest assurance”
as a means towards getting through life will be remembered.  How the
lamented sage would have envied the courage of Mr. Mann in putting his
name to a document embodying these statements!  It is really much the
same as if the Astronomer Royal had presented to Parliament an elaborate
calculation, signed with his proper name, in which he proved the diameter
of the earth to be 25,000 miles, and its circumference 8,000!  Seriously,
the very least one might have expected from a public servant performing
an important official duty would have been to abandon calculations which
he must have observed led to nonsensical consequences; and not to put
forth statements which, while they involved a gross libel upon the most
venerable institution in the country, were calculated to prove, as they
have proved, so fatally misleading.  These very Tables 6 and 14 are of
great importance.  We are constantly hearing that the great towns
monopolise the intelligence of the age, and that it is they which are to
govern the country.  What then, has been the verdict of the great towns
on the question—Church _versus_ Dissent?  According to these tables, the
Church, in the large towns, has provided only 747,027 sittings to meet an
increase in the population of 5,621,096 souls.  Dissent, in the meantime,
has furnished 1,873,305, or more than twice as many.  The Church’s
increase is not two-thirds the number of sittings she originally
possessed; the increase of Dissent is more than sevenfold!  If these
figures were only correct, it would hardly be possible to conceive a more
complete condemnation of the Church’s system; if they are not—and there
is no reason to think that Dissent has materially altered its position in
the large towns since 1801—it is impossible to imagine a more scandalous
or a more gratuitous calumny.

Mr. Mann’s formula proving utterly untrustworthy, the question arises,
are there any data on which a substantially correct notion of the number
of Dissenting sittings in 1801 may be arrived at?  To the writer, it
appears that there are.  Thus, from the statistics of the different
Wesleyan bodies appended to Mr. Mann’s report, it would appear that the
old and new Connections in 1801 had at least 100,000 members.  It would
further appear, that for every member the Wesleyans have about four
sittings, so that in 1801 the Wesleyans must have had at least 400,000
sittings.  The next question is, what proportion did the Wesleyans bear
to the aggregate Nonconformity of 1801?  At present, the Wesleyan sects
have about 11/24ths of the entire number of Dissenting sittings; but
their ratio of progress has confessedly been double that of their fellow
Nonconformists.  Mr. Mann’s process of calculating from dates,
unsatisfactory as it is in other respects, may, perhaps, be allowed to
decide how much of the entire Dissenting accommodation of 1801 was
possessed by the Wesleyan bodies.  According to table 17, the old and new
Connections had between them only 165,000 sittings, out of the 881,240.
It has been shown, however, that they had, in reality, not less than
400,000; and, raising the sittings belonging to the other sects in the
same proportion, we get a total of 2,136,339.  This result receives
complete corroboration from Mr. Mann’s own returns.  First of all, it is
clear that meeting-houses which have remained in existence half a century
must be buildings of some importance.  Dissenting places of worship are
of two classes—those which have regular congregations and a regular
ministry attached to them, and those which are merely temporary preaching
stations.  The number of these latter will surprise the reader.  Mr.
Edward Baines, in his evidence before the Churchrates Committee,
estimated that no fewer than 7,360 of the 19,000 which he supposed
belonged to “the three denominations” were of this description.  The
total number of mere preaching stations, however, may be easily
ascertained.  It may be safely assumed that all places which have a
regular ministry are opened both on Sunday mornings and on Sunday
afternoons or evenings.  The total number of this class in 1851 was only
10,583; so that each would _represent_ an average of 462 sittings.  Now,
as the number of Dissenting places of worship which date back to 1801
cannot be less, even if calculated on Mr. Mann’s principle, than 3900,
the number of sittings in that year must have been upwards of 1,800,000.
But it would be a great fallacy to suppose that even first-class
Dissenting congregations are exempt from the tendency to decay and
disappear.  If Nottingham may be taken as a fair example, it would seem
that not two-thirds of the regularly organised congregations existing in
1801 survive to this day.  The total number of sittings at the
commencement of the present century would thus be at least 2,700,000.

The matter does not, however, rest even here.  These estimates are purely
conjectural; but since the writer first turned his attention to the
subject, a valuable piece of positive evidence has fallen in his way.  It
is a Parliamentary return obtained by Mr. Bright last year, which
professes to show the number of places of worship licensed under the
Toleration Act.  It is very imperfect in its earlier tables, but those
since 1800 seem to be tolerably complete.  Comparing the number of places
licensed during each of the last five decennial periods with the number
of existing buildings returned to Mr. Mann as opened in each, we get the
following remarkable results:—{19}

Ten years         Places            Still in          Still in
ending            licensed.         existence.        existence (per
                                                      cent.)
1810                         5,460             1,169                21
1820                        10,161             1,905                18
1830                        10,585             2,865                27
1840                         7,422             4,199                56
1850                         5,810             4,397                75
                            39,438            14,535

This is a comparison which cannot fail to startle the editor of the
_Patriot_, and to shake the nerves of the Society for the Liberation of
Religion.  It proves beyond the possibility of cavil that the enormous
and constantly increasing growth which Mr. Mann’s tables assign to modern
Dissent is “a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.”  It shows, moreover
(which is the matter more immediately in hand), that barely two in seven
(21/75ths) of the Dissenting places of worship which were in existence in
1801, are still remaining.  The number of such places was not 3,701, as
Mr. Mann states, but between 13,000 and 14,000; and the estimate of
sittings first made, after every conceivable allowance for increase of
average capacity, and other sources of error, is thus greatly under
rather than over the mark.  The Dissenting increase may, therefore, be
safely taken at 2,758,309 sittings instead of 4,013,408; and if it be
distributed according to the proportion of places licensed, matters will
stand thus:—

Ten years ending            1811      381,875
         ,, „               1821      710,664
         ,, „               1831      740,319
         ,, „               1841      519,097
         ,, „               1851      406,354

If it be objected that the average capacity of Dissenting buildings has
increased of late years, there are two answers—first, there is no
evidence of such increase to any material extent; and, secondly, that
there is an antagonistic influence at work, which would counterbalance
such increase if it existed.  It must be clear that the number of
“causes” which annually collapse becomes greater in the same ratio as the
congregations themselves increase.  Thus, almost the same number of
places were licensed in the ten years ending 1810 as in the same period
ending 1850; but the number of places discontinued out of 13,000 would
obviously be less than the number discontinued out of, say 18,500; so
that unless the new Dissenting meeting-houses are larger nowadays than
was formerly the case, the amount of sittings attributed to the latter
periods is too large, rather than too small.

We have now materials for the reconstruction of our table:—

              Population.   Church        Dissenting    Total
                            Sittings.     Sittings.     Sittings.
1801             8,892,536     3,024,615     2,136,339     5,160,954
Subsequent decennial increase:—
1811             1,271,720        55,250       381,875       437,125
1821             1,835,930        96,900       710,664       807,564
1831             1,896,561       276,250       740,319     1,016,569
1841             2,017,351       667,250       519,097     1,186,347
1851             2,013,161     1,197,650       406,354     1,604,004
Total            9,035,073     2,293,300     2,758,309     5,051,609
Increase
Total           17,927,609     5,317,915     4,894,648    10,212,583

The number of sittings per thousand of the population was, at the
different periods, as follows:—

          ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE      ACCORDING TO MR. MANN’S
          TABLE.                      TABLE.
          Church.       Dissent.      Church.       Dissent.
1801               340           240           482            99
1811               303           247           424           120
1821               264           269           363           145
1831               248           285           323           181
1841               258           282           300           238
1851               297           273           297           273

Thus it will be seen that every inference drawn from Mr. Mann’s tables
has proved false.

Dissent has _not_, during the half century, supplied four times as much
new accommodation as the Church—if it has supplied any more at all, the
excess does not amount to a fourth.

Dissent has _not_, during the last 20 years, supplied three times as much
accommodation as the Church—it has barely supplied half as much.

Dissent is _not_ advancing at a pace twice as rapid as the Church; on the
contrary, the Church is advancing at nearly three times the speed of
Dissent.

Dissent has _not_ improved its position, and the Church has not lost
position since 1831; on the contrary, the Church has gained, and Dissent
has lost, ground since that year.

Finally, as churches, save only where there is an excess of accommodation
as compared with the population, are at least as well attended as
dissenting places of worship, the charge of comparative inefficiency
which has been so rashly brought against the clergy proves to be utterly
without foundation.

Here, then, the present inquiry might be brought to a close; and yet it
would be palpably unfair to the Church to rest the case upon a mere
comparison of the additional sittings supplied by her rivals and by
herself.  A new church, generally speaking, means a very different thing
from a new meeting-house.  It means a substantially built and even
highly-decorative structure, the freehold of which is the property of the
community to which it belongs; it means decent and becoming furniture for
the performance of divine service; provision for a properly educated
minister in perpetuity; service performed at least twice every Sunday, or
even twice every day; a house for the resident minister; a day-school, or
rather a group of day-schools; and a host of other benevolent and
educational agencies.  If the establishment of the day-school be taken as
a criterion how far the parochial machinery has been completed, the
following table from the report of the Educational Census will be
instructive:—

                DAY SCHOOLS SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS BODIES.

Founded before    Church Schools.   Dissenting Schools.     Total.
1801                           709                    57         766
1811                           350                    60         410
1821                           756                   123         879
1831                           897                   124       1,021
1841                         2,002                   415       2,417
1855                         3,448                 1,156       4,604
Not stated                     409                    89         498
                             8,571                 2,024      10,595

What, on the other hand, is the status of a majority of the 20,390
buildings returned to the Census office as “chapels” may be guessed from
the fact that the total number of professional dissenting ministers of
every description in 1851 was only 8,658.

A very tangible mode of settling the question which body has done most to
evangelise the people would be to inquire how much each has spent?  The
“Society for the Liberation of Religion,” in a tract they have put forth,
grounded on the Census report, states that the achievements of
voluntaryism during the half century have been “astonishing.”  On the
authority of Mr. Edward Baines, they assume that of the 16,689 dissenting
chapels opened since 1801, “only” 10,000 are separate buildings, and that
the cost of each has been “but” £1,500—in other words, that dissenters
have spent £15,000,000 on their meeting-houses during the last fifty
years!  That would, indeed, be an “astonishing” result, but it is not
half so surprising as the perfervid imagination which dictated the
calculation.  In point of fact, it is equivalent to saying that the
dissenters have provided three millions of permanent sittings, at the
rate of five pounds per sitting.  The real truth, however, is that they
have not supplied more than two millions and three quarters of new
sittings of any kind; and when it is considered in how many cases opening
a new meeting-house means hiring a room or building, in the popular
phrase, “on tick”; when it is further borne in mind that the average cost
of churches is not above £5 or £6 per sitting, it will be admitted that
five or six millions sterling would be a remarkably liberal sum to put
down for the amount really raised by dissenters for the purpose of
self-extension during the half century.  On the other hand, the sum which
must have been spent on churches cannot have been less than ten or twelve
millions—of which one-half has been raised during the ten years 1841–51.
The expenditure on church extension at the present moment is at least
five times as great as that of all the dissenters put together.

The votaries of _Iscariotism_, or the “cheap and nasty” in religion, will
perhaps turn this fact to account, and abuse Churchmen for lavishing such
large sums of money on a few buildings, while there is so much spiritual
destitution calling for relief.  They will perhaps say, “Look what an
amount of spiritual agency the Dissenters bring to bear for half the sum
you expend; and, after all, the Dissenters ‘get more out of’ their
buildings than Churchmen.”  At first sight, Mr. Mann’s tables appear to
justify this assertion; but here, as in every other respect, they only
mislead.  According to Table 16 there were on the Census Sunday 190
services in every 100 dissenting places of worship; whereas, there were
only 171 in the same number of churches.  But if this table be any
criterion, it would appear that the machinery of Dissent is, by
comparison, more efficient in the rural districts than in the towns; for
while the Non-conformists opened their town buildings on the average 2.10
times, and the Churchmen 2.06 times, they opened their country buildings
1.84 times and the Churchmen only 1.64 times.  Yet it must be obvious
that the proportion of country congregations which possess a regular
ministry must be very small, the greater part of the 8,658 professional
Dissenting preachers being required for the towns.  The fact is, the
majority of country meeting-houses are served by non-professional
persons.  As soon as the morning service is over in the towns, a swarm of
“Spiritual Bashi-Bazooks,” issue forth, who, for the rest of the day,
play the more ambitious, if not more edifying, _rôle_ of preacher.  The
sort of congregations to which they minister may be gathered from a
comparison of the number of meeting-houses and the number of sittings
open at the different periods of the day:—

               Meeting Houses (open).      Sittings (open).
Morning                         11,875               3,645,875
Afternoon                       11,338               2,506,116
Evening                         15,619               3,983,725

So that in the afternoon, with only 537 fewer places open, the number of
sittings was 1,139,759 fewer than in the morning.  In the evening (when,
of course, all the more important buildings which were open in the
morning were again accessible to the public) the exertions of 3,744
additional preachers, nearly a third more, only rendered available
337,850 additional sittings, or about one-eleventh more; and they
attracted only 97,668 additional hearers, an increase of less than one in
twenty-one!  It may, perhaps, be allowable to doubt whether the labours
of non-resident, non-professional preachers can be attended with any
results worth speaking of; but, at all events, their irregular
ministrations can have no real bearing on the question whether the
regular meeting-houses are used more or less frequently than the
churches.  Obviously, the fairest way would be to inquire which class of
buildings are opened the oftener throughout the whole week; and, in that
case, there is no doubt that the comparison would show greatly in favour
of the churches.  If, however, we must confine ourselves to Sunday, the
proper question to ask would be—in how many cases there is a service
before, and another after, noon?  The answer, according to Table 16,
would be as follows:—

                          Churches.              Meeting Houses.
                         (per cent.)               (per cent.)
Town districts                          85                          75
Rural ditto                             62                          43
Whole country                           66                          51

If the investigation could be limited to the new accommodation, the
result would strikingly show that the extra outlay on the churches had in
no sense been thrown away.

After all, the number of sittings a religious body can open in the
morning is the real test of its strength.  Amongst persons of every
denomination there is a strong feeling that they ought to frequent their
own place of worship in the morning, but in the after part of the day
many persons do not consider themselves called upon to attend again, or
they feel themselves at liberty to visit other churches or meetings.  In
short, to speak technically, the morning service is looked upon by
everybody as a service of “obligation,” while all the rest are regarded
as mere services of “devotion.”  Now, of the 5,317,915 sittings belonging
to the Church, no fewer than 4,852,645 were actually available on the
Census morning.  The remaining 465,270 were almost exclusively in the
country, where one clergyman has still often to serve more than one
parish or chapelry.  Cases of this kind have of late years been much
diminished, owing to the operation of the Pluralities Act, and still more
in consequence of the increased zeal, both of the clergy and the laity.
The Bishop of Salisbury stated in his primary charge that the number of
churches in that diocese having two sermons on Sunday had increased
during the episcopate of Dr. Denison (16 years) from 143 to 426; and the
number having monthly communions from 35 to 181.  The increase in the
number of church sittings during the past half century may be considered
as nett, for there can be no doubt that nearly all the new buildings have
the double service.  At all events, if there are any that have not, they
are more than compensated for by those ancient churches where there was
formerly only one service on the Lord’s Day, but where there are now two.
On the other hand, the Dissenters are not able to open quite
three-fourths of their sittings on the Sunday morning; and as there is no
reason whatever for supposing that their new accommodation is exempt from
this deduction, we may subtract one-fourth from the gross number assigned
in the tables to each period.

The following table, compiled on the assumption that 58 per cent. of the
population might attend divine worship on any Sunday morning, will show
at a glance the number of sittings really required at each decennial
period, and the real provision made to supply the deficiency:—

                Sittings     Furnished    By dissent.      Total.
                 (open)        by the
               required.      Church.
1801             5,157,671     2,559,345     1,577,143     4,136,488
Increase decennially:—
1811               737,598        55,250       286,407       341,657
1821             1,064,869        96,900       532,998       629,898
1831             1,100,005       276,250       555,239       831,488
1841             1,170,064       667,250       389,323     1,056,573
1851             1,167,807     1,197,650       304,766     1,502,416
Total            5,240,342     2,293,300     2,068,732     4,362,032
increase
Total           10,398,013     4,852,645     3,645,875     8,498,520

Or, exhibiting the same results in a somewhat different form:—

            Sittings per    Provided by   By Dissent.      Total.
              1,000 of        Church.
             population
             required.
1801                   580           287           177           464
1811                   580           257           183           441
1821                   580           225           199           424
1831                   580           214           212           426
1841                   580           229           209           438
1851                   580           270           203           473

 Church loss since 1801, 17; Dissenting gain, 26: total Church loss, 43.

  Church gain since 1831, 56; Dissenting loss, 9; total Church gain, 65.

This, then, is really the rate at which each body “is advancing in the
path of self extension;” and the best proof of its accuracy is, that it
exactly tallies with what one would have expected beforehand.  Mr. Mann’s
tables, on the contrary, are absolutely incredible.  We must never
forget, that during the Great Rebellion, Puritanism was actually the
dominant faction; and even at the Restoration it cannot be supposed that
the Dissenters were a small or an uninfluential class.  In 1662 no fewer
than 2,000 ministers were ejected under the new Act of Uniformity; and as
at the last census there were only 6405 professional Protestant
Ministers, it will be seen that the ejected preachers alone formed a
larger body, in comparison with the existing population, than the
Protestant Dissenting Ministry does now.  It cannot be doubted that every
one of those men had a greater or less following; and it must be
remembered that in the days of the Commonwealth there was always a rabble
of sects who might even then be called Dissenters.  It is true that,
after the Restoration, Nonconformity was subjected to severe repressive
laws, but those laws were not enforced with unvarying rigour.  In 1672
there was the Indulgence, and in 1681 the House of Commons passed a
strong resolution against the prosecution of Protestant Dissenters.
Besides, after all, the Conventicle Acts only continued in force about 23
years—not much longer, in fact, than Episcopacy had been proscribed by
law.  The natural result which would follow the famous proclamation of
James II., and the subsequent passing of the Toleration Act, would be a
great and sudden revival of Dissent.  How small was the church-feeling of
Parliament at the Revolution may be gathered from a curious fact
mentioned in Mr. Macaulay’s third volume.  It was proposed that the
Commons should sit on Easter Monday.  The Churchmen vigorously protested
against the innovation; but they did not dare to divide, and the House
did sit on the festival in question.  Without at all straining the
inference to be drawn from this incident, it would be difficult, indeed,
to suppose that Churchmen had matters their own way.  Even under the
penal laws, the Dissenters must have been a large body; for James the
Second’s scheme for forming a coalition of Roman Catholic and Protestant
Dissenters against the Establishment would have been stark folly unless
the two bodies, when combined, would have made up, at least, a powerful
minority.  From the Revolution to 1801 the Dissenters had more than a
century to increase and multiply; and all the circumstances of the case
were in their favour.  Worn out by the political struggles of a century
and a half, during which she had been made the tool of contending
factions; deprived of her Legislative powers; silenced and frowned upon
by the powers that were, the Church had sunk into that fatal lethargy
from which the present generation has only just seen her awake.  During
that long and dreary period, all the prominent theologians, with a few
bright exceptions, were either Dissenters or inclined to Dissent.  The
eighteenth century, too, was the golden age of popular Nonconformist
preachers.  Not to mention a host of smaller names, Wesley and Whitfield
both rose, flourished, and died before its close.  And yet, if we are to
believe Mr. Mann, the Dissenters in 1801 were a much smaller body,
compared with the whole population, than they were under the penal laws!
{25}  On the other hand, all who remember the obloquy and contempt under
which the Church continued until the passing of the Reform Act, will
reject, without a moment’s hesitation, the notion that, in 1831, she
actually possessed more accommodation, in proportion to the population,
than at the present day.  The change which has taken place in the popular
sentiment towards her has not been caused by any document like this
Census report, which suddenly appeared and disabused the public mind of
its preconceived ideas.  It has, on the contrary, been brought about by
the silent influence of those spectacles of zeal and self-denying
liberality which have been witnessed in every corner of the land.  The
Church has, in fact, lived down her traducers.  A hundred proverbs bear
witness to the vast amount of good deeds which are required to remove an
evil reputation; and yet Mr. Mann calls upon us to believe that the
Establishment has achieved this, although, with all her numbers and all
her wealth, she has not, since 1831, done so much as the Wesleyan sects
alone, towards supplying the people with the means of religious
instruction and worship!  One has no language to characterize such a
daring attempt on the public credulity.  The most charitable hypothesis
will be to conclude that Mr. Mann, though an arithmetician by his office,
knows nothing about arithmetic; and so remit him to the consideration of
Mr. Roebuck and the Administrative Reform Society. {26}

THE inquiry through which the reader has been invited to travel will
probably suggest several considerations; and first of all the importance
of putting a stop to the statistical nuisance which has of late years
flourished with so rank a growth.  Surely it is time that members of both
Houses of Parliament, who resent so jealously any attempt on the part of
Government officials to exceed or fall short of the precise instructions
given them, in making returns, should raise their voices against the
system of publishing with official statistics the crude, and, as it has
been seen, the nonsensical but pernicious theorizings of the persons
entrusted with the task of compiling reports.  Like Mr. Mantalini, the
majority of persons never trouble themselves to examine a numerical
process, but content themselves with simply asking what is the total; and
it therefore becomes the duty of Parliament to see that the unsuspecting
confidence of the public is not abused.  The reader must not suppose that
the Report on Religious Worship is the only recent one which is open to
objection.  The Census Report on Schools is just as full of fallacies;
and it has certainly been one of the strangest phenomena ever witnessed
in the history of public discussion, that the schemes of Lord John
Russell and Sir John Pakington, assailed as they were on every side,
should have escaped what would, after all, have been the most effective
blow that could have been aimed against them—the simple but conclusive
fact, so easily deducible from the premises of the Report on Schools,
that nearly as many children were under education as could be induced to
attend unless they were driven to the class of the teacher by the
policeman’s staff. {27}

Again, the inquiry will probably satisfy the reader that the anti-Church
legislation of the day ought to proceed no further.  It is easy to assign
the cause which in the first instance gave it birth.  Most statesmen, it
may be presumed, will be ready to adopt, with regard to the multifarious
sects of modern Christianity, the last clause, at least, of Gibbon’s
famous dictum respecting the ancient religions of Pagan Rome—“to the
people equally true, to the philosopher equally false, to the magistrate
equally useful.”  Persons who profess with sincerity almost any form of
Christian doctrine are comparatively easy to govern; they throw but a
light burden upon the poor-rate and they cost nothing at all in the shape
of police.  A statesman, then, might dislike Dissent, but what was he to
say to a state of things like that revealed in the Census report?  The
Church, according to Mr. Mann’s tables, could not, by dint of the utmost
exertions she is ever likely to put forth, find accommodation for half
the souls who are year by year added to the population.  On the other
hand the Dissenters, who are far less wealthy, and have few endowments,
provide without difficulty and without fuss more than twice the amount of
new accommodation supplied by the Church.  The irresistible inference in
the mind of a mere statesman would be that Dissent ought to be aided and
encouraged.  But if it turns out that the facts are precisely the reverse
of what has been represented—if in reality Dissent is making no progress,
while the Church is providing new accommodation sufficient for the whole
of the new population—why should the Legislature go out of its path to
foster mere religious discord, and to impede the spread of what the
country has, after all, long since recognised as the “more excellent
way.”  Why, for instance, should Churchrates be abolished?  If they were
right in 1831, when there were more Dissenters and fewer Churchmen, why
are they wrong now?  If Parliament has conferred upon parishes, _as a
boon_, the right to tax themselves (if a majority of the ratepayers think
fit) for the purpose of building and maintaining public baths, museums,
and libraries, why should parishes now be deprived of a right which they
possessed before there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a
budget—before the Norman set foot upon our shores, or there was a House
of Commons worthy of the name—the right to tax themselves in order to
maintain edifices which may be museums second in interest to none, and
which may have been centres of enlightenment long before the days of
Caxton and Guttenberg?

There is another view of the case which ought not to be overlooked by
statesmen who regard a religious Establishment as a mere matter of
police.  Granting that Dissent teaches men to be neither drunkards nor
thieves, is it calculated to make them as good citizens and as good
neighbours as the Church?  The answer must surely be a negative.  The
common consent of mankind has pronounced the famous descriptions of the
old Puritans in “Hudibras” to be almost as applicable to modern
Dissenters as to their ancient prototypes.  Nor, indeed, would it be
easy, if they were not, to account for the popularity of Butler’s
oft-quoted lines; for even just satires, to say nothing of unjustifiable
lampoons, rarely survive the persons against whom they are directed.  Of
course, men are often much better than the system to which they belong.
There are hundreds—nay, thousands—of Dissenters whose Dissent is a mere
accident of birth and education, and who are truly catholic at heart; but
of Dissent in the abstract, no one who has either studied its history or
is acquainted with its practical working will deny the applicability to
it not only of Butler’s portraiture, but of another yet more famous
description, qualified in the latter case, however, with the insertion or
omission throughout of the important word—“not.”  Dissent suffers not
long, and is not kind—Dissent is envious—behaves itself unseemly—vaunts
itself, and is puffed up—seeks every tittle of its “rights”—is easily
provoked—thinks evil—gloats over every slip on the part of its
opponents—attributes what is good in them to a wrong motive—will bear
nothing of which it can rid itself by agitation or clamour—will put a
good construction upon nothing when an evil one is possible—hopes
nothing—endures nothing.  If this were not so, how would it be possible
to account for its inveterate propensity to internal schism?  The
scriptural account of the Kingdom of Heaven is that it should grow as
from a seed; but Dissent is propagated chiefly by _cuttings_.  It is not
yet two hundred years since the Kirk was established in Scotland, and yet
there are no fewer than six sorts of Presbyterians.  The case of
Wesleyanism is still worse.  Within sixty years after the death of its
founder it had split into seven antagonistic sects.  Whitfield himself
quarrelled with Wesley, and his followers have, since his death,
separated into two bodies.  There are four sorts of Baptists.  Of the
Independents, Mr. Mann speaks with refreshing innocence as forming “a
compact and undivided body.”  It would be nearer the truth to say that
they consist of nearly as many sects as there are meeting-houses.  Nearly
every congregation is of volcanic origin, and every one contains within
it elements which might at any moment explode and shatter the whole
concern.

That the writer may not be thought to be unsupported by facts, he will
here summarize the history of Anabaptistic and Congregational Dissent in
the first town to the annals of which he has ready access—Nottingham, his
authority being Mr. Wylie’s local history, published in 1853.
Nottingham, however, is a remarkably good example for the purpose.  It
has a manufacturing population of 57,000, having doubled itself since
1801.  It is almost at the head of those places in which Dissent is most
rampant, and the Church most depressed.  It possessed, according to Mr.
Mann’s table K, 35.2 Dissenting sittings to every hundred inhabitants,
the only other places equal or superior to it in that respect being
Merthyr Tydvil (52.4), Sunderland (35.2), Rochdale (36.5), and Swansea
(42.8).  It boasts of 74.1 per cent. of the whole religious accommodation
within its boundaries, the only places having more being Merthyr (89.7),
and Rochdale (78.7).

    About the middle of the last century, then, the Presbyterian
    congregation on the High Pavement adopted Socinian tenets; and many
    families thereupon left it and joined a small congregation of
    Calvinistic Independents in Castle-gate.  Their meeting-house was
    immediately enlarged, and it has ever since been considered the
    leading Dissenting place of worship.  In 1761, a second secession
    from High Pavement, this time of Sabellians, built themselves a new
    meeting-house in Halifax-place.  In 1801, they erected themselves a
    new building in St. Mary’s-gate, which has long since been closed.
    In 1798, a third swarm, again Calvinistic Independents, left High
    Pavement, and settled in the Halifax-place meeting-house, vacated by
    their Sabellian predecessors.  In 1819, they built themselves a new
    meeting-house, called “Zion Chapel,” in Fletcher-gate, the old one
    being now a school.  In 1822, a secession from Castle-gate built a
    new meeting-house in St. James’s-street; and six years later a
    secession from St. James’s-street built a meeting-house in
    Friar-lane.  In 1804, a secession from Zion Chapel erected “Hephzibah
    Chapel,” which being in debt, was sold to the Universalists in 1808,
    and was soon afterwards converted into a National School.  In 1828,
    another secession from “Zion Chapel” erected a meeting called
    “Bethesda Chapel.”

    The General Baptists at first met in a disused Wesleyan
    meeting-house, called “The Tabernacle,” which has long since been
    pulled down.  In 1799 they built themselves a place in Stoney-street.
    In 1817 a quarrel arose between Mr. Smith, the senior pastor, and his
    junior, of whose pulpit talents he was said to be jealous.  The
    congregation dismissed them both, and appointed a Mr. George.  On
    Sunday, the 3rd of August, in the same year, there was a personal
    conflict after the Donnybrook manner, between the partisans of Smith
    and George.  The friends of Smith being beaten drew off, and built
    themselves a meeting-house in Broad-street.  In 1850 there was
    another secession from Stoney-street, who built themselves a
    meeting-house on the Mansfield-road.

    The Particular Baptists originally occupied an ancient meeting-house
    in Park-street: but in 1815 they built themselves a larger place in
    George-street.  In 1847 there was a secession of extra-Particulars.
    These met first in a room in Clinton-street, then in an old building
    which had been disused by the Quakers, and finally, in a splendid
    gothic edifice, which they built for themselves on Derby-road.  The
    old meeting-house in Park-street fell into the hands of a
    congregation of the Scotch variety of the sect, whose peace has only
    been disturbed by the Bethesdians, who joined them in 1828, until
    they decided upon setting up for themselves.

Thus it will be seen that of the nine new congregations enumerated above,
not one was originated without a quarrel—a quarrel, too, of the worst
kind, a personal one.  Nobody can study the history of religious polemics
without perceiving that the root of all that bitterness which has made
the _odium theologicum_ a proverb, is to be found in the tendency there
is in men to transfer the indignation they might reasonably feel against
error, from the error itself to those who hold it.  If people would only
consent to forget history and would conduct the argument upon purely
abstract principles, even the Roman controversy might be made instructive
and edifying; but somehow, before long, the debate wanders away from the
truth or falsehood of the creed under discussion to that most irrelevant
of all issues, the virtues or failings of those by whom it is professed.
What shall we say, then, of a system which gives rise to controversies
which, from their commencement to their close, are purely personal?  Lest
it should be supposed that the case of Nottingham is an isolated
instance, here is an extract on which the writer stumbled the other day
in a tract written in praise of Congregationalism, and stated on the
title page to be “commended by J. Bennett, D.D.”  It appears to be quoted
from a work called “The Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge,” and the
scene of the incident is stated to be “one of the principal cities of the
United States:”—

    A Baptist congregation, originally small, had increased so rapidly
    that an enlargement of the chapel became necessary.  It was
    immediately effected.  The congregation still continued to increase,
    and a second time it became necessary to enlarge.  Everything still
    going on prosperously, a third enlargement, some time after, was
    proposed.  The noble-minded pastor, however, thinking that he had
    already as much on his hands as any mere mortal could conscientiously
    discharge, with a generous contempt for his own interests, opposed
    this step, and suggested that they should exert themselves to raise a
    new interest, entirely independent of the old one.  The people
    entered cheerfully into his design; nay, they made a nobler sacrifice
    than that of their money.  For as soon as the new building was
    finished, one of the deacons, with a few of the most respectable
    members of the old church, voluntarily separated from it, and
    proceeded to form the infant _colony_ that had branched off from the
    mother church.  What is still more delightful, the two churches
    formed a common fund for the erection of a third chapel.  This was
    soon accomplished.  In a short time a large and flourishing church
    was the result; and, at the time our informant related this fact, all
    three churches were actually subscribing towards a fourth chapel.
    This is noble conduct.  Who can tell how soon cities and towns might
    be evangelised, if this principle were sternly (!) acted upon?  A
    somewhat similar fact has, we understand, been recently witnessed in
    a city of our own country, where some congregational churches have
    imitated their Baptist brethren of America.  When will all ministers
    “go and do likewise?”

This is truly edifying and amusing.  First of all, mark the _habitat_ of
this Nonconformist phœnix, a congregation which has actually given birth
to another without a preliminary quarrel.  We must actually cross the
Atlantic, and seek the phenomenon in the land where the penny-a-liner
places his sea-serpents, and his other choicer wonders.  To increase
without envy, hatred, and uncharitableness is, it seems, to a Dissenter,
something inexpressibly “noble”—and brotherly love is something that must
be “sternly” acted upon!  We may be quite certain that it is something
the congregational sects very rarely see, or it would not throw them into
such lamentable, and yet, in some sense, ludicrous contortions of
surprise.

Perhaps some Dissenter will be whispering, after the manner of Mr.
Roebuck, the three words, Gorham, Liddell, Denison; but the _tu quoque_
wholly fails.  In the first place, it is the surprising peculiarity of
the present Church controversies that the noisiest, if not the
weightiest, disputants are not Churchmen at all.  In the next place,
those who are Churchmen, and enter with any bitterness into the strife,
are remarkable neither for their number nor their influence.  The great
party in the Church of England is, after all, the middle party; and
however fierce the cannonade which the extreme left, and its allies
outside the pale, may direct against the extreme right, their missiles
fly harmlessly over the vast body which lies between.  The truth is, the
recent outburst of controversy, so far as the Church herself is
responsible for it, is nothing but the natural recoil of that
conservative sentiment which must always be a powerful feeling in a
religious community, from doctrines and usages which had become
unfamiliar.  As the unfamiliarity passes away, the controversy will also
gradually cease.  Already the doctrines and usages in question have been
unconsciously adopted by many of those who fancy themselves most opposed
to them; and, indeed, if our doughtiest combatants would only take pains
to understand what it is their antagonists really hold, they would often
find that they are fighting against mere shadows.  The recent suits in
the ecclesiastical courts cannot but open the eyes of Churchmen to the
extreme tenuity of the points in dispute.  Take the S. Barnabas case.
Everybody will remember the language which was applied to the “practices”
revived by Mr. Bennett.  “Popish,” “histrionic,” “mummery,” were the
mildest terms in the repertory of that gentleman’s assailants.  Those
“practices” remain to this day—if anything, they have been elaborated
rather than subjected to any mitigating process.  Messrs. Westerton and
Beal bring the matter before the proper tribunal; but what are the only
issues they can find to raise?  Such notable questions as whether the
cross, which glitters on the crown, the orb, and sceptre of the
Sovereign, which glows on the national banner, which crowns almost every
church gable in the land, with which every Churchman is marked at his
baptism, which the very Socinians place upon their buildings, is,
forsooth, a lawful ornament?—whether a table ceases to be a table by
being made of stone?—whether the altar which has never been moved these
two hundred years, and which nobody wants to move, must nevertheless be
movable?—whether the altar vestments and the “fair linen cloths” used
during Communion time, may have fringes, or must be plain-hemmed?  Even
if Dr. Lushington’s judgment should eventually be confirmed, if in this
age of schools of design, Mr. Westerton’s crusade against art should
prove successful, the alterations that would be made at S. Barnabas would
be discernible by none out the keenest eyes—so little can there be found
in matters ritual to fight about.  Even in the Denison case the points of
difference are almost as infinitesimal.  It is true that under the
revived act of Elizabeth—compared with which the laws of Draco seem a
mild and considerate code—the Archdeacon has been sentenced to lose his
preferments; but his doctrine on the Real Presence has, in sober fact,
never been so much as challenged.  His opponents, passing over all that
was material in his propositions, have only attacked a _quasi_ corollary
which he has added to his main position, but which is, in reality, a
complete _non-sequitur_.  Whether Dr. Lushington is right or wrong, it is
clear that a person holding the dogma of transubstantiation itself might,
with perfect logical consistency, accept the ruling of the Court.

The differences between the highest and the lowest schools being so
impalpable, it would seem absurd to suppose that the present
controversies can have a much longer continuance.  But whether that be so
or not, there is a very important distinction (and one that is well worth
the notice of statesmen) between the extension of the Church and the
spread of Dissent.  Church extension, as far as it goes, tends to compose
differences.  The consecration of a new church is almost invariably
regarded as an occasion when party differences should be laid aside—the
opening of a new meeting-house is too commonly the crowning act of an
irreparable schism.

Another lesson which the report of Mr. Mann ought to teach Churchmen is
the necessity there is for insisting upon the next religious census being
made a complete and accurate one.  The next religious census ought to
include all such institutions as colleges, workhouses, hospitals, and the
like—it ought to be enforced by the same penalties as the civil census;
and it ought to be understood that all the returns would be printed in a
blue book.  With these precautions the Church need not fear the result.
Even if the census of 1861 should prove no more trustworthy than that of
1851, it will remove a great deal of the misconceptions to which the
latter has given rise.  As far as one may judge, the work of church
extension is progressing just as rapidly now as it was ten years ago; the
number of the clergy is just as rapidly augmenting; {33} and as all
additional clergymen have now to be supported on the voluntary principle,
we may presume that they follow the ordinary laws of supply and demand.
We may, therefore, confidently expect that the number of church sittings
open on the census morning in 1861 will not be fewer than six millions;
and if there be an average attendance (which there was not on the last
occasion) the number of persons present will be about three millions and
a half.  That the Dissenters will be able to open any more sittings than
in 1851, is doubtful; for it must be remembered that since 1841 the
Church has been annually absorbing a population equal to the entire
yearly increase.  But allowing them the same increase as has been
assigned to them for the decade 1841–51, they will not be able to open
more than four million sittings, and they will not have more than two
millions and a half of attendants.  This estimate is formed on the
supposition that the next census will be made on the voluntary principle
like the last.  If a more complete and accurate account is taken, the
result may be very different.  It is quite within the bounds of
possibility that the number of church attendants may turn out to be near
four millions, while that of the Dissenters may not much exceed two.

Looking at all the facts of the case, there is every reason why the
Church should take courage.  Never since the Reformation has she had so
much real power for good—never has she been so free from abuses.  Each
year sees thousands returning to the fold from which they or their
parents had strayed; each year sees her enemies more and more “dwindle,
peak, and pine.”  Everything, too, points to a daily acceleration of the
process.  At the very time that Convocation is resuming its functions,
the Non-conformist Union is compelled by internal dissentions to abandon
their yearly meeting.  What Mr. Miall calls “the dissidence of
dissent”—that is to say, all in it that is pre-eminently narrow-minded,
ignorant, and infected with bigotry—is concentrating itself, and is thus
getting free the more respectable elements of modern non-conformity.
Meanwhile the better class of Dissenters are doing all in their power to
cut the ground from under their own feet.  They are building
“steeple-houses,” inventing liturgies, and adopting even choral services;
in other words they are expressing in the most emphatic manner their
opinion that the whole theory of dissent is wrong.  For a short time a
Brummagem ecclesiology may satisfy them; but in the end they will no
doubt rank themselves amongst the best sons of the Church.  The truth is,
there is no other religious community at the present day which can bid so
high for the reverent attachment of Englishmen.  Whatever the claims of
Rome—her antiquity, her catholicity, her apostolicity—they are equally
the Church of England’s.  Her succession of bishops is the same, her
regard for the primitive church greater, her conception of Christendom
far more grand.  The glories of the ancient rituals belong equally to the
Book of Common Prayer.  It contains nothing material which was not in
them, there was nothing material in them (save only certain invocations
and legends of the saints) which is not in it.  The Prayer Book is, in
fact, nothing but a translation (magnificently done) of the older
offices, a little compressed and simplified.  The structure is the
same—the mode of using it the same; and if it has lost somewhat of the
multiplied ceremonies which were anciently observed, it has gained far
more in the majesty and breadth which it has acquired from its thoroughly
congregational character.  Besides, it is throughout a reality, whereas
the office books of the Latin Communion have, to some extent at least,
become a sham.  Thus the Breviary has long since been practically
abolished as a public form of prayer, and even as a manual of private
devotions for the clergy, that which forms its staple, the Book of
Psalms, has been virtually reduced to a fourth its bulk.  In nearly a
thousand churches belonging to the Anglican communion the whole Psalter
is publicly recited every month, and in twenty times that number it is
said through twice every year.

If Protestant Dissenters boast of their enlightenment or of their
reverence for Scripture, the Church may meet them on that ground likewise
with the utmost confidence.  The Prayer-book scarcely recognises a person
to be a Churchman if he cannot read; and she directs some forty psalms
and some thirty chapters of the Bible to be gone through every week.  In
a word, approach the Church of England from the most opposite points, and
she will be found to possess exactly that attribute which a person might
think is most admirable.  The man who reverences antiquity—who has a
taste for art—who has a passion for ritual—who would have everything
“understanded of the people,”—he who insists upon ranks and orders—and he
who stands up for popular rights, will equally find in the Church of this
country the very quality which he deems important.  Never was there any
institution so “many-sided;” never one that became with so much success
“all things to all men.”  How she could ever have lost her hold on the
affections of Englishmen is indeed wonderful; but, in truth, until
lately, she has never had a chance of making herself understood.  _Now_,
for the first time, her theory is beginning to be appreciated; and the
success which has attended her, wonderful as it has been, is probably but
the foretaste of a future more brilliant than anything of which we can
now form an idea.




FOOTNOTES.


{11}  The above tables, it is right to say, have been obtained by
subtracting Mr. Mann’s tables relating to the Church from the tables
relating to places of worship in the aggregate.

{19}  It is right to say that the decennial periods do not exactly agree.
In Mr. Mann’s tables they are from 1801–11, &c.; in Mr. Bright’s return,
from 1800–10, &c.  It is not, however, apprehended that this circumstance
would materially affect the calculation.

{25}  Neale estimates the Nonconformists, in the time of Charles II., at
a hundred and fifty thousand families, or three quarters of a million
persons; in other words, at about a sixth of the population.  If the
Dissenters had in 1801 only 881,240 sittings, their number of morning
attendants would be considerably less than 400,000; and, allowing each
attendant to represent three persons, that would give a Dissenting
population of about 1,100,000.

{26}  The faculty of reasoning correctly in figures is not so ordinary an
accomplishment as might have been supposed.  Even so intelligent a writer
as Mr. Henry Mayhew prints, at page 391 of his “Great World of London,” a
table, of which the following is a specimen:—

        1842.                Can neither               Can read
                               read nor             only (percent)
                           write (percent).
Convicted at assizes                     39.79                   27.21
and sessions
Convicted—summarily                      39.90                   21.65
               Average                   39.84                   24.43

—the average being found by adding together the two lines and dividing
the sum by two.  It need hardly, however, be pointed out that the result
so arrived at could not be true unless the number of persons in each
class was exactly the same.  A man who had invested in the Great Western
Railway £900 which yielded him two per cent., and £100 in the South
Western which paid him six, might say, on Mr. Mayhew’s principle, that he
had invested £1000 at 4 per cent; but he would soon find out that he
would have to receive only £24 for his yearly dividend instead of
£40—£2.8 percent. instead of £4.

{27}  Mr. Mann calculates that without in the least interfering with
juvenile labour, and without questioning the discretion of parents who
kept children between the ages of 3 and 5 and 12 and 15 at home, there
ought to have been more than three million children at school in 1851.
It would be easy to show that this estimate is based upon nothing better
than a series of blunders and bad guesses, but there is a much shorter
mode of dealing with it.  The children of the middle and upper classes do
not remain under professional instructors at home or at school for a
longer average period than six years.  Now, the total number of children
in 1851 between the ages of 4 and 10 was 2,484,866, or 13.8 per cent. of
the entire population.  The number actually on the school books was
2,200,000, or 12.2 per cent.  So that either all the children in the
country were at school, but the average time was one-eighth too short; or
the average time was of the right length, but the number of scholars was
one-eighth too few.  The truth, of course, lay somewhere between these
two alternatives.  Since 1851 considerable progress has no doubt been
made; but it unfortunately turns out that the effect of improved
machinery is not to improve the general education, but merely to shorten
the time allotted to schooling.  It is found that if by better modes of
tuition a child can be made sooner to acquire what its parents think
sufficient for it to know, it is only so much the sooner taken away.  It
would therefore be vain to expect that the school per centage will ever
be much higher than it was in 1851—at least, until the middle classes
raise their own standard.  Of the children on the schoolbooks in 1851,
the per centage of actual daily attendants was 83—91 for the private, and
79 for the public scholar.  In America, where the schools are wholly
free, the per centage was still less.  In Massachusetts, for example, it
was only 75.  In other words, the attendance in England and Wales in 1851
was 1,826,000 daily.  If the 2,200,000 had all been private scholars, it
would have been 2,002,000.  On the other hand if there had been 2,400,000
free scholars, it would only have been 1,800,000.  These figures will
speak for themselves.

{33}  The number of additional clergy ordained every year is stated to be
300.  The number required to maintain the proportion of clergy to
population which existed in 1851 would be under 200.