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 Buildings. Total 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—