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 Sittings. | Dissenting Sittings. | Total Sittings. | |
1801 | 8,892,536 | 4,289,883 | 881,240 | 5,171,123 |
The subsequent increase was asfollows:— | ||||
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 Increase | 9,035,073 | 1,028,032 | 4,013,408 | 5,041,440 |
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.