Part 3

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.