Part 2

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.