The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-12 00:00:00

of income tax) Continuance ; the Poor-law Board Con-
tinuance ; the Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland) ;
the Union Charges Continuance ; the Holyhead Har-
bour ,sc, ; the Dublin Carriage ; the Linen, &c., Manu-
f Lctures (Ireland).
The Portland, &c., Chapels Bill was read a second
time.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments. - -
The Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges
Bill passed through committee.
THE CENSUS RETURNS OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.
The Bishop of OXFORD moved, in pursuance of
notice, for "the details of the returns from which the
tables of religious worship presented to the Houses of
Parliament in reference to the census of 1851 were pre-
pared." He said, about the period when the last census
was taken he pointed out to their lordships the evils
which he thought would arise from the circulation
throughout the country of questions of an important
nature, for the answers to winch they would be entirely
dependant on the good will of a large number of persons,
while when the returns bad been made there would be
great difficulty in checking them. However, the returns
obtained had now been made public in the form of a
very able statement, sent forth from the Registrar-
General's office—a statement which in many respects
did infinite credit to that gentleman, by whom it
was drawn up. This great public document, for such it
hal really become—which professed to fix the relative
numbers of members of the Established Church and
Dissenters from that Church throughout the country,
ought most undoubtedly in proportion to its importance
to be strictly accurate. The spreading of inaccurate
statements on such a subject must, he need scarcely tell
their lordships, he a fertile source of evil. The census of
religious worship had been frequently referred to as a
grounl of argument, and this showed how important it
was that a document which went forth with the weight
of public authority should be an accurate, and not a
misleading document. Now he had no complaint to
make against this office of the Registrar-General,
or the gentlemen who were employed in that
office, as to any want of care in the making
of the returns. The fault which he had to point
out was inherent in those to whom they were obliged to
refer for the data on which the returns were founded.
The enumerators were, he believed, instructed to apply
to the clergymen of the different churches, and the mini-
sters of the different meeting-houses throughout the
country. In many cases the clergy, for the same rea-
son that had influenced himself and other members of
that house, objected to make any returns, What, then,
was the enumerator to do ? He sometimes had recourse,
as he (the Bishop of Oxford) could show by means of a
document which he held in his hand, to those who were
hostile to the church, living, perhaps, not in the parish
itself, but in a neighbouring parish, who undertook to
furnish him with the ineormation which he wanted. The
number of worshippers in many churches went forth on
no better authority than that, and the result was that
they were stated in an official document much below the
truth. From his own diocese, in which a great many
clergymen refused to make returns, he obtained in 1851
returns of the average number of persons attending
church, and according to these it amounted to 117,421.
In the same year the returns of the Registrar-General
gave 98,410. This was a considerable difference. But
the main difference was to be found, not so much
in the lessening of the number of those who
attended the churches, as in the increasing of
the number of those who attended other places
of worship. On one ground he rejoiced that those
who did not worship God in the Established Church
worshipped Him somewhere; but he could not see with
anything like satisfaction inaccurate statements of the
relative proportion of worshippers, when he knew that
they were continually made a ground of argument on
important matters connected with the interests of reli-
gion in this countty. (Hear, hear.) He had, therefore,
taken pains to ascertain how far the returns made as to
other parts of the country, besides his own diocese, were
reliable, and he trusted none of their lordships would
think that he entertained any uncharitable feeling when
he declared that there bad been gross mistakes. In re-
ference to this matter he would remark that those who
made the returns were in many cases men who did not
move in the same rank of life as the clergy of the Estab-
lished Church. He had no doubt that in the large dis-
sentin; chapelS of large towns the returns were honestly
made. His inquiries, however, applied to very different
places—the small licensed rooms in remote villages,
served by persons who had not the advantage of much
education, and who were not subject to general obser-
vation, and with regard to these he had no hesitation
in saying that there was great misrepresentation with
regard to the relative numbers. In proof of this he
would read to their lordships extracts from letters
which he had received from clergymen of the
Establivhed Church in different parts of the country,
premising that he had ascertained the name, address,
and general character of each of the writers, so
that the statements made were capable of verification.
One writer said, "In this parish and neighbourhood the
dissenters filled their assemblies on purpose." Another
said, " Most, if not all, of the dissenters of the next
parish attended hero and vice versa, the services being
held at different hours, so that they were counted twice
over in both parishes." Again, " Special services were
preached at all the meeting houses to attract a congre-
gation and swell the reti r is." Again, " I sent no re-
turn. The returns for the church here were I believe,
sent -by a ycung dissenter in a n Igbouring town."
Another writer, living in a different part of the country,
said, "There were no efforts as respects the church.
The preachers of some of the chapels gave notice the
Sunday before that it was to be a trial of strength be-
tween the church and dissent, and that their congrega-
tions were to muster in strength and bring as many
as they could with them. This has particular refer-
ence in this neighbourhood to the baptist and inde-
pendent chapels." Another writer said, "I beg to add
my conviction that in this matter the census returns are
really worth nothing, In many instances no returns
were made by the clergy, and from a private return
which I obtained, I found that three congregations, in
this parish, at separate chapels consisted of the same
persons." He had other statements of the same kind,
but he would not weary their lordships by reading them.
His object was to show their lordships that the returns
obtained by this process were not to be relied upon as a
true statement of the relative numbers of the members of
the Established Church and the Dissenters. (Hear.)
In the census returns themselves there were serious dis-
crepancies. For instance, it was stated that in the town
of Liverpool the number of sittings provided in Roman
Catholic chapels was 8,806 ; whereas the number of
attendants on the morning of the day on which the cen-
sus was taken was set down at 27,650. In St. Giles's,
London, the number of sittings in Roman Catholic
places of worship was stated at 460, while the attendance
in the morning was set down at 3,000 These were re-
markable instances of the want of accuracy. Detailed
information would be most useful in checking the returns.
(Hear.) If they could get from the different parishes the
returns, or even a considerable proportion of the returns,
sent up to the Registrar-Generals office, they would be
able to bring the allegations on the subject to some cri-
terion, which was all that he desired. Whatever the

truth was, it ought to be stated—(hear)—and he be•
Leved the resuit of examination would be to show that
it wai not a mere episcopal figure of speech to say, as
he did say, thank God the great majority of the
people of this country still belonged to the Established
Church.

Tue Bishop of St. DAVID'S said he was opposed to
the clergy of his diocese making returns, because he
thought they would thereby be leading their sanction to
what would in the result be an imposition on the public.
As regarded the light in which the returns wereorne-
garded by hi, own clergy, he would obsen e that e
clergyman stated that he could not give anTi e ~hd had
returns at
e
the last census, after the experieuce which
of the manner in which the Dissennteecrshabpael, d mhaed
said
ald wassimilar
returns on previous occasions. o
returned as having 2,000 attendants,
whereas a person
e nald
someon
individualsly contain
were weil known to have
belongingl,2 0
o.
Another
ntoo
ti lead
ht e
been counted two or three
mt bat
stated
i that
clergyman e r statedang
times over as attending the chapels of different deno-
minations. As regarded Sunday schools in his own
neighbourhood, it was mentioned as a matter of noto-
riety that the numbers returned for particular schools
were two or times as large as the number which the
building would contain. It was certain that the returns
generally were made in a manner which afforded no
security against abuse, and that to a very great extent
gross misrepresentation was the result. He hoped he
should not be suspected of having made this statement
in order to disparage Dissenters. They had no right,
he maintained, to assume that any body of men were
above temptation ; and he really would not assert,
that under similar circumstances the clergy of the Church
of England would be superior to the temptation into
which many Dissenters had fallen. With respect to the
future, returns would clearly be of no value unless
they were obtained in a different manner. If such
a method was to be adopted in future it became
evident that there must be provided such a check and
control over the returns as would operate as an effectual
security against the abuses and misrepresentations which
he believed had only been partially and imperfectly dis-
closed to their lordships that night. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said that this subject had been
most legitimately brought forward by the right rev.
prelate, and he regretted that he had to rise in seeming

opposition to the representatives of the Church, espe-
cially on a question the object of which was to give more
ample and truthful information to the country. SWI,.
there were reasons why it would not be desirable to give'
the returns asked for. In the first place, the Census-
office was shut and the accounts closed. The number of.
returns amounted to 37,381. But his main reason for
not consenting to the motion was that in the circular of
the Secretary of State it was stated that it was not in-
tended that all the particulars contained in the returns
should be published. Under these circumstances,
it would be impossible to accede to the motion. He par-
ticipated with the right rev. prelate who spoke last, in.
the regret that some other legal arrangement did nob
exist than that which existed when the census was taken.'
He regretted that the answers to the queries were nob
made compulsory, and that incorrect answers were not'
made penal. He regretted also that the Secretary of
State went beyond the strict legality of the act in en-
closing queries in the first form, but having done so it
was perfectly competent for any peer to call attention
to the fact. One evil which resulted from the two dis-
euisions which took place on the subject, was to pro-
duce an unwillingness on the part of different clergymen
to fil up the return, and thereby an unfavourable impres-
sion was created as to the number of persons who be-
longed to the Church of England. Neither of the right
rev. prelates imputed any blame to the census office.
cdieadl odpivininioenwaosrsthoi the comparative numbers who at-
(Hear, hear.) It was impossible for him to give an
official opinion as to the comparative numbers who at-
ten p, but it was most_probable from
the facts which bad been stated that the numbers given
jg returns of those who Attended the church were helm!