The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-14 00:00:00

most confirmed sceptics, just as they please, if each
does but furnish creditably his respective quota
towards placing The Sun in the hands of our
readers at the proper time. Like the member of
Parliament referred to, we could not bring our-
selves to catechise them on their religious profes-
sion, and we should not choose to be Government
agents for such a purpose. This kind of repugnance
is, we are confident, a very wide-spread feeling,
and it will occasion very gemeral resentment if,
merely to please a knot of High Church zealots,
the Government intrudes on our English privacy
on such a subject, with their ill-timed sectarian
questions.

Our readers have doubtless seen what this silly
piece of mischief-making sprung from. In the
census of 1851 a return was obtained of the attend-
ance upon all the places of worship in the kingdom,
on one and the same Sunday. Unfortunately, the
result did not suit High Church purposes. A
slight majority of the worshippers on that Sunday
turned out to have been at the various dissenting
chapels. Hence the return was denounced in every
way, and represented as unsatisfactory and incor-
rect. We do not think it well could be ; any Sun-
day would do for an average; and though some
churches might not be so well attended on that
particular day, it is obvious the same might
be the case with many of the chapels. In-
deed, we think the demand of these over-
hot Churchmen, for another mode of tak-
ing the religious census, shows that they
were afraid to test the accuracy of the old re-
turns by keeping to the same plan, though all must
acknowledge that the value of statistics depends so
much on the results admitting of comparison.
But we affirm decidedly that if we are to have
religious statistics at all—the desirableness of which
we very much question—the old plan was far the
better. It involved, on the one hand, nothing un-
pleasant to individuals ; on the other, it tested the
only point of real interest to a practical people like
us—what each body of religionists was doing. It
indicated pretty well how many paid no attention at
all to religion, so far as public worship indicates
attention, and how far each sect was successful in
creating an interest in religious worship. We are a
working people, and the old census told us how
much work of this kind was doing. We would
not give a farthing for a register of religious
opinions—of the numbers who would register them-
selves as belonging to sects whose worship they
never attended—nor would we give much for the
old returns. Still the value of a census of the
religious profession of persons not checked by the
very easy test of regular attendance on the worship
of their sect, must be a worthless one indeed.
We may ask LordPALmEßsToN,:therefore, now to
choose between friends and foes. Two deputations
have presented themselves to him. The first consist-
ing of those who vote for him at elections and in the
House—the next nearly all of them persons who take
the opposite course. The point in dispute is, not a great
principle, but a new detail in the Census Bill; one,
the underhand origin of which is apparent from this
last deputation, who gladly father it, and thus prove
its illegitimacy—Tory prompters and a betrayed
Liberal Minister. We advise the Government to
concede at once. Better, we should say, give up
the religious census altogether than annoy,
for such a mere crotchet, a large body of ac-
tive Liberals; if a religious census must be
had, let it be as before one of worshippers ; and, if
wished, one of accommodation also—the last would,
indeed, be the best and fairest of all. It could
be open to little doubt. Should Lord PALMER-
STON and Sir G. C. LEWIS, however, be so ill
advised as to prolong this dispute, we should not be
at all surprised to see their majorities of thirteen
nine, and twenty-one, divind:e to minorities of at
least the same numbers. Those who gave up a
Reform Bill to Tories may very well give up a
Census Bill detail to friends.