The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-04 00:00:00

TOTAL.

Chapels 590
Members of Sects 255,411

" This, be it remembered, is the return of the Dissenters
themselves, who, if they have had any interest in falsifying
it, have certainly been interested in falsifying it on the
side of excess. This is the proportion of non-conforming
religionists in the most exclusively manufacturing district
in England-255,411 out of a population of 953,978,
nearer one-fourth than one-third of the whole."

In the above statement it will be seen that the
Roman Catholics have 83 chapels, and all the
other Separatists 507 ; while the members of the
Catholic sect are returned 144,244, and the
whole of the other Separatists only 111,167.
The fact is, that the Catholics always return the
whole population, young and old, belonging to
them ; while the Dissenters do not even return
the whole that form part of their congregations,
but only such as are of age, and have formally
joined their respective associations. We had
imagined that this was a matter notorious as the
sun at noon clay. In the case of many of the
Calvinist Dissenters, the becoming a member of
the association is preceded by rigid examina-
tion as to qualifications, and the entry into se-
rious obligations ; and it often happens, espe-
cially in towns, that an individual has, from his
childhood to age, had a seat in a Dissenting
Chapel, and paid for his seat, without being a
member. If we were to take the proportion of the
Catholics to the 83 chapels belonging to them
for our guide, with respect to the other sects, we
should have a Dissenting population of 902,860.
But this would be beyond the mark ; and the rea-
son why we must take the proportion between Ca-
tholics and chapels as a guide for the other Sepa-
ratists is this, that the Catholics, from poverty, do
not possess a number of chapels corresponding to
their population. As the Catholics baptise
separately, we have the means of ascertaining
their numbers from the average ratio of births to
population. According to that criterion, it has
been ascertained that the Catholics in Liverpool
amount, at present, to upwards of 60,000 ; but
their chapels are not in proportion. In this
metropolis the Catholics have only 23 chapels,
but from the returns of births which we have
seen, they must exceed in number 160,000.
The Catholics are the very lowest class ; the
Dissenters include a majority of the middle
classes ; and here they have more places of
worship, compared to their population, than the
Roman Catholics. The only way to obtain an
approximation to accuracy, in determining the
proportion of Dissenters to Episcopalians, would
be to count the families in both, and assuming
the whole family to be Episcopalians or Dis-
senters, to assign an average number of persons
to each family. An approximative return of this
kind would probably give, in Lancashire, three
Dissenters for each Episcopalian. There is
another way of arriving at something like
accuracy. The Rev. Air. Cock, in his exami-
nation before a Committee of the House of
Commons, made the Presbyterians of Ulster
amount to about 700,000. Their congregations,
including the Seceders and Cameronians, only
amount to about 400. Having ascertained the
proportion between members and non-members,
in a given number of families, an average was
struck, and the total thereby obtained. A
Committee of the Town Council of Edinburgh
has, since the municipal reform of that city,
drawn nu a report on the state of the churches.
From that report it appears that, according to
the Government census of 1831, the population
of the nine parishes of the Old Town was
28,196, and that there were 4,637 seats let in
these nine churches. The church-going popu-
lation is calculated at one-third of the population.
This would give to the Established Church in
the old town of Edinburgh about one-half of
the population, the whole of the attenders of
places of worship being 9,398. The Scotsman
calculates the whole of the churchgoing people
of all Edinburgh at 47,000. If we suppose
that the proportion of church-going people in
the Scotch towns be fully greater than in
England, we should have, out of the 953,970,
the population of the parts of Lancashire, horn
which returns were obtained, a proportion of
churchgoers of 317,990. If we deduct from
this sum the Separatists, 255,411, we should
have a church-going Episcopalian population of
62,579. But this would evidently be too small,
because the 144,244 Roman Catholics are not
church-goers merely, but young and old ; in
short, the whole Catholic population. The
blunder of the Standard, in calculating the

whole Dissenting population of the country at
two millions, because there are eight thousand
chapels, and allowing 250 to a congregation
this will give two millions, is so obvious, that
we are astonished how our contemporary could
suppose any one would swallow it. What pro-
portion the congregation bears to the whole
population connected with it, we will not at-
tempt to fix. Assuming it at one-third of the
population, that would give 750 souls to every
congregation of 250, and would make the Dis-
senters of England six millions. It would be
most absurd, however, to suppose the remainder
of the population Episcopalian. In England a
very large part of the population are utterly
neglected, and belong to no religious commu-
nity whatever. There are various criteria for
determining the proportion which the Dis-
senters bear to the Episcopalians, without hav-
ing recourse to conjectural estimates of congre-
gations. In the present day there is a very
great desire for education, and the children of
Dissenters and Episcopalians are equally dis-
posed to attend the Sunday Schools of their
respective communities. In the borough of
Marylebone there is a population of 234,294;
25 Episcopalian churches and chapels and 26
chapels of Dissenters. The children attending
Dissenting Sunday Schools are 4,114 ; attend-
ing Episcopalian schools, 1,353. It is pretty
obvious that, if we were to give only four
hundred to each of the Dissenting congregations,
and to multiply that number by three, to make
up the whole Dissenting population, that would
be in all only 31,200. But the children at'
Episcopalian Sunday schools would indicate that
the Episcopalians are only about one-third of
31,000 ; so that, deducting 31,000 from a
population of 234,294, we should have about
190,000 without anv religion at all in the
lborough of Marylebone. But we merely
notice this to show the absurdity of the Standard
claiming all the population as Episcopalian
beyond 250 for each of 8,000 Dissenting
chapels. All that the Standard has stated tends
only to bear us out in our assertions. We are
satisfied we have been rather under than above
the inark.—Morning Chronicle.
We beg to refer our readers to the letter of
Civis in the Post of this day, in which they
will find some straightforward and honest re-
marks on the quarrel, or pretended quarrel,
with Russia. There is a great deal of fire and
fury in the Ministerial Journals upon this sub-
ject, and the understanding, in all quarters
undoubtedly is, that our Ministers have placed
themselves in a position in which nothing can
prevent war but important and humiliating con-
cessions on the part of Russia, or an utter
sacrifice of dignity, honour, and consistency on
the part of the British Government. We do
not by any means expect that Russia will sur-
render substantially any part of the advantages
which the imbecile or knavish traffic for popula-
rity on the part of the Governments of England
and France has enabled her to obtain. As Mr.
Canning, and those Whigs who, by an equal
sacrifice on both sides of honour and princi-
ple, were confederated with him, thought fit
to place Turkey in the power of Russia, for
sake of the temporary popularity they ac-
quired, as the protectors of a horde of
pirates and assassins, whose whole claim to
favour or support was that they were not merely
pirates and assassins, but revolted subjects also
—as Mr. Canning and his confederated Whigs
thought fit to do this, it is rather too much to
expect of Russia now that she will relinquish
the advantages thus placed in her hands. Have
we not the memory of the glorious battle of Na-
varin to console us for any disadvantages which
may accrue from the ascendancy of Russia in
the East? Was not the flag of Russia inter-
twined with that of Great Britain ? Did not
Russian cannon roar in emulation of our own
on the day of that splendid achievement ? And
if this triumph, and the policy of which it was
the consummation, has produced great advantage
to Russia and great injury to ourselves, did not
every man in England who was neither fool nor
traitor clearly foresee and confidently predict that
such would be the result ? What quarrel has
England with Russia for seizing an opportunity
of aggrandizement which any other Government
similarly tempted would equally have seized ?
The true quarrel of England is with the
imbecile, unprincipled, treacherous party of
English politicians who presented to Russia the
irresistible temptation and facility to aggrandize
herself at the expense of the welfare and security
of their own country. Neither do we expect,
we own, although we believe that Russia will
make no material concession, and although we
hear from all sides that Lord Palmerston has
tried his best to be grave and dignified and
peremptory, that there will be any war. A war
may be necessary for the honour and interests
of the country, or it may not. But this is not
the question. Our present Ministers know
perfectly well that the commencement of a war
with any considerable Power would be the signal
for the whole country to tell them in a voice
which must be heard that it is time for them to
retire. They must be conscious that the country
would not trust them to carry on a war of three
months' duration. There is the rub. So far
as England is concerned, we feel persuaded that
the peace of Europe never rested upon a more
stable foundation than at the present moment.—
Morning Post.

We last week called on the Dissenters to
dismiss their supineness, and call public meetings
for the purpose of bringing their grievances
before the next session of Parliament. A t the
same time we briefly stated the four heads under
which those grievances might he classed :—first,
the state of the marriage laws; second, the
register of births and deaths ; third, the neces-
sity of contributing to an alien establishment ;
and, fourth, the exclusion from the Universities.
Since we wrote, it will appear by the Advertiser
of Monday, that a great public meeting took
place at Bradford, on the previous Wednesday,
for the purpose of presenting a memorial of
grievances such as we recommended, and that
the speakers on the occasion, who exhibited
much ability, successively deprecated the four
heads of grievance to which we adverted, and
urged the necessity of their immediate remedy.
On this occasion the Rev. Mr. Taylor, in a
speech of considerable energy and eloquence,
expatiated in the following terms on the evils
produced by the mischievous State expedient of
an Established Church :
" With all Protestant Dissenters, I do conscientiously
believe, and I can see no reason why we should not
honestly and openly avow our belief, that Christianity in
this country is enfeebled, and rendered, to a great extent,
inoperative and inefficient by state enactments, political
interference, and compulsory support ; and that England
will never become universally Giristian until Christianity
shall be left to itself, and suffered to maintain its ground,
and extend its conquests by its own native energies.—
(Cheer,) We oppose the system, not the men. Most
sincerely do we wish the latter well, and desire their real
good, only we are not prepared to sacrifice justice, reli-
gion, the Church of Christ, and the souls of men—in,

order to secure to diem, and such as they, the possession
of wealth, distinction, and influence. We find an eccle-
siastical system which always has introduced worldly-
minded men into the ministry—of whose regularly autho-
rised clergy a very large majority have invariably been either
heterodox in doctrine, or immoral in practice, or both ; if
that system, from its essential principles and constitution,
must always create, and sanction, and support such teachers
of religion as these, we are prepared to contend that such a
system must be essentially wrong, and we do not hesitate
to declare that our concern for the honour of God, and the
salvation of men, constrains us to seek its overthrow.
When the Church is endowed with civil honours and
emoluments, the strongest possible temptation to enter it
is held out to all who covet distinction and wealth. The
only approximation towards the certain assurance of a
pious, orthodox, and efficient Ministry, is that which is
obtained by the operation of the voluntary principle."
With this opinion we in a great degree
concur. Our firm impression is, that the ques-
tion to be considered now is not (as is craftily
alleged by the Conservative party) whether the
Church of England shall suffer or not by the
change required by the spirit of the age ; but
whether Christianity itself shall, by an in-
veterate adhesion to abuses, escape the irre-
parable injury of a gradual decay or con-
version into infidelity. No such idea as a
Political State Church was contemplated at
the origin of Christianity ; as is proved by
the only authentic history of its establishment
in the " Acts." The fatal result of its political
character is, that it produces a discrepancy be-
tween the doctrine and the practice, too broad
and too glaring to escape the common observa-
tion. This discrepancy might pass in Popish
times, when the people were cajoled with false
interpretations of Scripture, made from a text-
book in a foreign language. It might even pass
after the Reformation—in times when education
had made little progress among the people.
But now when the people can (thanks to the
schoolmaster) perfectly understand all that con-
cerns the original faith and practice of the
Christian religion, as detailed in the Gospels
and the Acts—the discrepancy revealed to
them by this simple and unfailing knowledge
must be fatal to Christianity itself, if the
excrescences of abuse which feudal state mys-
tery has engendered on its surface be not
unsparingly cut away. In the authenticated
volume of their faith the people read of a
religion of poverty, of self-abasement, and of
self-denial. In the doctrines and practice of
the modern teachers they perceive nothing but
a religion of worldliness, selfishness, prodigality,
and idolatry, of gratification and of lucre. Such
a practical falsehood cannot be daily exhibited
on the part of instructed and professed Chris-
tians, without tending to make Deists or Atheists
—without engendering doubts on uninstructed
minds of the truth of Christianity itself.
This is the real evil to be feared. Sure we
are, that in order to give a popular diffusion
to Christianity (and we can only recognize
its interests as a moral faith--not as a well-paid
corporation) two things are alone wanted :
First, the payment of all cure of souls by a
voluntary stipend, Proportioned to the labour
and public benefit of the cure; second, a re-
sumption of church property, for national and
educational purposes, by the nation, which
having first conferred the perverting gift on the
Church, and subsequently transferred it from
the Catholic clergy to the Protestant, demon-
strated by both acts its right to resume the
trust fund, and employ it in such a way as may
be deemed most beneficial for the nation and
the real interests of Christianity.—Morning
Advertiser.

OLD BAILEY, JAN. 3.

OLD COURT.

William Sao:well, aged 19, was indicted for steal-
ing a violoncello, value 20e., the property, of Abel
Bush.

The prosecutor examined by the COURT—Are
you a musician ?—Yes, my Lord.
Were you amusing yourself on the lath of De-
cember ?—No, my Lord, I vas amusing the public.
I vas a wait, my Lord, it being Christmas time, and
the prisoner carried my bass, and ye vent about
a-waiting all night. Veil, about five in the mornin
I had to take home Ikey Couch, cause he was blind,
and couldn't see no more nor a post. Ikey vas our
fast fiddle, my Lord, so I told Snoswell to take my
bass to the Cambrian coffee-house, in Bishopgate-
street, but he never corned anear me, nor my bass
nither.

Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—How many of
you were there in this firm of disturbers of quiet
people ?—There vas three on us, me, and Ikey, and
another young man vot I don't know ; he warn't
my riggler partner.
Can the prisoner play ?—Play ! no, I'm blessed
if he can. He's only a wamp.
A wamp ! what do you mean by a wamp?—Vy,
wot we calls wamping is scraping on the key
note all the way through, cause then he don't make
no disagreeable discords, nor yet spoil no catgut.
I got him a situaiion at the Shakspeare Theatre to
carry the board about. He didn't hact nothing. I
lent him my bass to yarn a shilling, but I niver gev
him no vages; howsomdever I gave him a basin of
soup. _ _

The father, a respectable-looking man, believed
his son had been made a dupe by fiddlers and
mountebanks.

Several persons gave him a good character.
Guilty, but recommended to mercy.

SURREY SESSONS, JAN. 3.

In a trial for assault, in which a young man was in-
dicted for assaulting a married woman, by striking
her a severe blow on the eye, considerable alterca-
tion ensued between the Chairman and Mr. Dunbar,
who was counsel for the defence. In the course
of Mr. Dunbar's cross-examination of the prosecu-
trix the Chairman interrupted him, and condemned
him for endeavouring, by his questions, to insinuate
that a criminal intercourse had taken place between
the pro,ecutrix, who was a married woman, and the
defendant at the bar.

Mr. DUNBAR said that all he wanted was to elicit
the truth, adding, that he had adopted that mode
of cross-examination which his instructions in the
case justitied.

The CtimuntAN said that no instructions justified
such vile insinuations as had been attempted in the
cross-examination.

Another witness, a young man, was then called
to prove the assault which was committed on the
prosecutrix, and which he distinctly swore to have
witnessed.

In the course of his cross-examination Mr. DUN-
BAR put some questions with the view to impeach
the credibility of his testimony, upon hearing which
The CHAIRMAN rose, and, addressing Mr. Dun.
bar, said that during the whole of his experience he
never heard a more slanderous or more improper
cross-examination in any Court. He (Mr. Dunbar)
had, in the first instance, insinuated that the prose-
cutrix had an illicit intercourse with his client, for
which there was not the slightest ground ; and now
he wanted to impute to the witness under exami-
nation that he was tried for some offence at the Old
Bailey, which insinuation was equally without foun-
dation.

Mr. DUNBAR denied in strong language that he
had resorted to slander in his cross-examination of
the parties. The epithet applied to him he flung
back from whence it came, and should not be inti-
midated from pursuing his duty as advocate for the
defendant, notwithstanding what had been said.
He defied any man tol say that he had ever con-
ducted him!elf in any way derogatory-to the cha-

racier of a gentleman, and of that person who said
otherwise he should not hesitate in saying that he
was a liar. He bad acted upon this occasion agree-
ably to the instructions put into his hands by a pro-
fessional man.

The CHAIRMAN would venture to say that no man
of honour at the Bar would have adopted such a
line of cross-examination as that to which he had al-
luded.

Mr. DUNBAR, upon comparison, was not at all
afraid but his character would stand the test with
that of the Learned Chairman.
The CRArRMAN said that the conduct Mr. Dunbar
had pursued on this occasion was not at all to be
wondered at after the specimen he had given the
day before.
Mr. DUNBAR—What do you allude to ?
The CHAIRMAN had been informed that he (Mr.
Dunbar) had followed a prosecutor out of Court
the day before, and besought him to recommend a
man whom he had defended to the merciful consi-
deration of the Court.

Mr. DUNBAR—I deny that I made any applica-
tion of the kind to the prosecutor ; in fact, the pro-
secutor came to me himself upon the subject, and if
he is questioned on the point, I am convinced that
he will acknowledge-that I made no application of
the kind to him.

Mr. ELYARD, the Magistrate, said that the pro-
secutor in the case referred to had distinctly told
him that Mr. Dunbar had requested him to recom-
mend his (Mr. Dunbar's) client to the mercy of the
Court.

Mr. DUNBAR again declared that there was no
truth in the assertion, and was proceeding to renew
the altercation, when a Magistrate rose and said that
he perfectly coincided with everything that had
fallen from the Chairman on the subject of the im-
proper mode in which the cross-examination of the
prosecutor and witness had been conducted on the
occasion.

Another Magistrate said that it was a disgrace to
the profession of the Bar when any member of it
descended to throw out insinuations such as had been
in the course of this trial for assault.

The CHAIRMAN, perceiving a person standing near
Mr. Dunbar, asked him if he had furnished the
Learned Counsel with his instructions ?

The person to whom the question was put an-
swered in the affirmative.

CHAIRMAN—Are you an attorney ?
The reply was that be was not at all connected
with the law, but that he had drawn up the brief
agreeably to the instructions he had received from
the defendant.

The CHAIRMAN remarked upon this admission,
and said that Mr. Dunbar would recollect that he
had stated that he received his brief from a pro-
fessional man, and it now turned out that the person
froM whom he had his instructions was in no way
connected with the law.

Mr. DUNBAR said that the Counsel practising in
that Court were frequently employed by persons
who termed themselves law agents. It was done
every day, and he imagined that the person from
whom he had his instructions was one of that class
of men.

After some further remarks, the case of assault
then proceeded, and the defendant was found Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN, in passing sentence, said his
offence was aggravated by the mode of defence
which was set up.

MIDDLESEX SESSION, JAN. 2.

EARL MANSFIELD V. THE PARISH OF ST. PANCRAS.

This was an appeal on the part of the Noble
Earl against an alleged excess of assessment made
on him for poor-rate.
The parish officers of the parish of St. Pancras had,
in obedience to orders in vestry, caused a fresh sur-
vey last year of Lord Mansfield's house and grounds
at Caenwood, the result of which was, that they had
increased the rating of the whole estate to 2501, in
consequence of which the present appeal was made.
Mr. CLARKSON contended that the rating was
above the value of the estate, and called

Mr. Prichetr, an auctioneer and land-surveyor,
who believed the yearly worth of Lord Mansfield's
house was 5201., and the grounds 1301.
Mr. Rainy, another surveyor, believed that if the
parish rated Lord Mansfield at 6001. a year, it would
be rated at the full value of the estate.

Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the respondents, contended
that no exorbitant rating was proved. According
to the showing of the noble appellant's witnesses,
the estate, if to let, would be worth 6501. a year;
but as this was not an estate to be disposed of in
that manner, but occupied by the Noble Earl and
his family, there was nothing to show that the value
which the parish surveyors had fixed it at, vie. 8251.
per annum, was not correct.
The rate was confirmed.

Mr. CLARKSON applied to the Court to allow the
case, that it might be brought before the Court of
King's Bench.
The Court refused it, and ordered the cost to be
paid by the appellant.