The Truth about Church Extension / An exposure of certain fallacies and misstatements contained in the census reports on religious worship and education

by Anonymous

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].