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:—