HL Deb 11 July 1854 vol 135 cc23-33
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

rose to move for the production of the documents of which he had given notice, namely, the details on which the returns of the Religious Census had been founded. At the time of the taking of the last Census in 1851, certain papers were sent round in order to obtain information relating to the religious worship of the population. Objections were taken by him (the Bishop of Oxford) in their Lordships' House to the sending round of those papers, on the ground that it was beyond the power vested in the Secretary of State; and he had subsequently taken occasion to point out the evils which he thought would be likely to arise from papers of that important nature being circulated, without there being any power to compel the information required to be sent in. He had pointed out that those returns must be entirely dependent on the good-will of those who were expected to furnish them, and that there must necessarily be a risk of mistakes, and even deception, occurring in them. The returns, however, were made in the manner originally proposed, and were now published, embodied in a general statement issued from the Registrar General's Office, as part of the results of the Census of 1851. This statement certainly did infinite credit to the gentleman who had drawn it up, and he had evidently applied himself to his very difficult task with a determination to do his best by it. He was very far from undervaluing the result of this gentleman's labours; but he thought it must be allowed that a great public document such as this had become, which professed to fix the relative number of the members of the Established Church and of those dissenting from it throughout England and Wales, in proportion to its importance ought also to be accurate, and that to spread inaccurate statements on such a subject would be a fertile source of many evils. This Census of Religious Worship had been referred to and used in that manner, and that marked the exceeding importance that such documents, if they came at all stamped with the weight of public authority, should be accurate, and not misleading documents. He had no complaint whatever to make of the Office of the Registrar General; the gentlemen employed showed no want of care on their part in making the returns; but the fault was to be traced to the returns which were given to them as the data on which the public returns were to be founded by those who furnished the subject-matter of the reports—namely, the clergy of the Established Church and the ministers of the different Dissenting bodies. With respect to the clergy, many of them refused to send in any returns; and the consequence was, that applications were obliged to be made to the churchwardens, or any other person who could assist in the matter, or take any trouble about it. For this reason the numbers given in the official documents as purporting to belong to the Church of England were oftentimes very loosely put together, and considerably less than such numbers really were. In his own diocese, in which not a very great number of clergymen refused to send the return, he had desired that every clergyman should take the trouble, on several consecutive Sundays, to have the congregations numbered, and to send him the average of the congregations so numbered. The numbers in his diocese were 117,421 according to that enumeration; but in the same year the return of the Registrar General only gave the numbers at 98,410—a considerable difference. But the greatest mis-statements in the reports occurred, not from our own numbers being lessened, but from the numbers of the Dissenters of nearly all denominations being greatly exaggerated and set forth. He hoped that their Lordships would acquit him, in dealing with this subject, of any desire to speak uncharitably or in a spirit of undue disparagement of those connected with the great Dissenting bodies, for nothing could be further from his desire, and he could not feel otherwise than glad at heart at seeing that so many of those who did not worship in the church were engaged in the worship of God elsewhere; but the reason why he brought forward the subject of these returns was, that they were made use of to militate against the interest of the Church, and to give an unfair impression of what the numbers of persons belonging to the Church of England really were as compared to the Dissenting bodies. He had, therefore, taken the trouble to ascertain in detail how far the statement respecting the persons who attended worship in these places was accurate in this Census return, and he hoped their Lordships would not think there was any uncharitable feeling in his mind when he stated that the result showed that a great increase had been made in the returns to the real numbers of the Dissenters. He was by no means surprised that such errors should have been committed. Many of their ministers were not often in the same rank of life as the clergy of the Established Church. There was no doubt that in large Dissenting chapels in large towns the ministers were men of education, and he had no doubt that, if inquiries of this kind were addressed to them, their returns would be honestly made; but those inquiries were extended to very little places —to all the small licensed rooms in remote villages—to men who had not the advantages of education—and who were not the objects of general view and observation; and with regard to these he had no hesitation in saying there was continually a misrepresentation in point of fact as to the relative numbers of the members of the Established Church and of the Dissenters. He should give a few extracts to their Lordships from answers received by him to letters from different parts of the country, and as he had the name and address and character of the persons who had written each one of those letters, he was able, therefore, to give a verification of the statements contained in them. The statements were such as these:—in one parish the Dissenters filled their place of assembly on purpose to swell the numbers in the return; in another many attended in the evening who had been counted previously as belonging to a different Dissenting congregation; another correspondent was informed that the numbers of the Dissenters were much exaggerated; another said that a fair average was not given; in one parish almost all the Dissenters from the next parish attended, and vice versâ, the services being held at different hours, and so they were counted twice over in both parishes. Again, special sermons were preached in a neighbourhood in all the meeting-houses, to attract congregations and swell the returns. Again, it Was stated that the return respecting the Church was sent in by a Dissenter in a neighbouring town. Again, another writer had reason to believe that the same person attended the services of different denominations on the day of the enumeration. Another writer had reason to think that the Dissenters were particularly active on that day in requesting attendance at their conventicles. Again, it was stated that in some cases the meeting-houses could not hold the numbers that were returned except the congregation was composed of very small children. Again, it was stated that the return from the Wesleyans was greatly exaggerated, and that the Dissenters had filled their chapels by advertising popular preachers and withdrawing many of the children from the national schools on that day. Another writer stated that there were no efforts made as respected the Church, and that the unfavourable state of the weather had kept many persons who lived at a distance from attending at church on the Census Sun- day, while the preachers at some of the Dissenting chapels had given notice that it church was to be a trial of strength between the Church and the Dissenters, and the congregations were to muster in strength. That statement had particular reference to the Baptist and Independent chapels. Another writer said that some of them returned double the numbers the chapels Would contain. Another person wrote to him that he had no doubt he was right about the Census; that the clergy were careless and indifferent about it, having no notice of the use to which the returns would be put, and looking upon many of the questions as impertinent or intrusive, and they either neglected them, or else had no means of giving an accurate statement, whereas the Dissenters were wide awake on the occasion. Another writer stated that the return was made in his locality by parties hostile to the Church. Another writer said that the particular person who made the return was so hostile to the Church that he would never come within it as secretary of a certain charitable body, though all the other members of the society attended. Another writer begged to express his conviction that the Census returns were really worth nothing; that in many instances there was no return of attendants made by the clergy, and that he found that three congregations of Dissenters in separate chapels consisted of the same persons. He (the Bishop of Oxford) had received many other statements of the same kind, and his object was to show their Lordships that returns obtained by this process could not he relied upon as being true statements of the relative numbers of the two bodies. There was an important fact to which he should call their Lordships' attention—namely, that in the Census returns themselves, for the town of Liverpool the number of sittings given for the Roman Catholics amounted to 8,806, while at the same time the number of attendants in one morning was represented to be 27,650. In Manchester there was the same disproportion, and in the parish of St. Giles's a still greater. In St. Giles's the return of sittings was 460, but the attendants were put down at 3,000. It appeared that 286 persons were put down as belonging to the Established Church for a whole union; whereas it was stated by a clergyman that he had returned 550 as attending his own single church in that union. The answer was, to thank him for pointing out the omission, and to state that the number attending at his church had been accidentally omitted. So that, in that case, the numbers should be 836 instead of 286—a very material difference, but certainly an accident that might happen in any case; and he did not attach any weight to it, or quote it to prove his case, except in this way, that they must see from it how useful detailed information would be in checking such errors. If they could get from the different parishes the returns sent up, or a considerable number of them, they would be able to apply to the allegations he made a rule or criterion, which was all they required. Whatever the truth was on this subject it ought to be told, and there should not go forth to the public, on mistaken facts, a statement as to the relations of the different religious bodies in this land. It should not go forth, except it was true, that it was an episcopal figure of speech to say what he said—that, thank God, the great majority of the people of this country do still belong to the Established Church.

Moved— That there be laid before the House 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 prepared.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS

said, he was in a condition to confirm the statement of his right rev. Friend, though it was but very recently that his attention had been specially drawn to the subject. At the time of the last Census he had a conversation with the clergyman of a parish, who mentioned some practices that had come to his knowledge, which drew from him the observation that if such were the case, and if the returns were open to such abuses, he would very much have wished that the clergy of the Church of England should have declined making any return; for by doing so they were not assisting to ascertain truth, but were appearing to lend their countenance and sanction to that which was in the end an imposition on the public. Even supposing the returns had been correct, unless they were so guarded from abuses as to gain the general confidence of the country, they would fail in accomplishing their most important objects. With regard to the light in which the returns were considered by the clergy, a few letters he had lately received were quite sufficient to illustrate that part of the case. He found one of those clergymen stating that he really was not able to give certain information about the last Census, because, having taken no pains to inquire into the matter, from his experience of the manner in which similar returns had been obtained by the Dissenters on previous occasions, he considered the Census, as far as it related to the number present at each place of worship, a mere farce. In one case, where the return from a chapel stated that the numbers attending amounted to 2,000. it was found the largest number it could contain was 1,200. He found another clergyman stating that it was generally believed that the Dissenters had made excessive returns, and the belief was supported by two facts, the first being that the returns of persons attending the different chapels in many parishes exceed their whole population; and the second being that the same individuals were well known to have been counted two or three times over as attending the chapels of different denominations. It was stated also to he a general practice that where there were several chapels of different denominations, each having its Sunday School, they clubbed the Sunday Schools together to attend each of their services at different times of the day. In many places they offered a peculiar attraction to attend, to many Welsh congregations—namely, the public catechising of the children, which not only secured a large attendance of children, but a large addition to the ordinary congregation. There was another kind of malpractice which was a still wider departure from fair dealing, because he understood that the grossest mis-statements had slipped into the calculation of the numbers attending the schools. In his own neighbourhood he found it mentioned as a fact of general notoriety, that the numbers reported from particular Sunday Schools were two or three times as large as it was possible for the buildings to contain. Another instance which came from particularly good authority, also in his own neighbourhood, was an illustration of the same practice. In that case the Dissenting minister seemed, for some reason or other, not to have found himself competent to fill up the return himself, and requested the registrar to do it for him. He stated that his congregation was 400; and then came the question as to the number of sittings, which he very innocently stated to be between 150 and 200. The registrar begged he would explain how 400 persons could meet in a room that would contain but 200, and he confessed that that little circumstance had frequently escaped his attention, and he desired the registrar to put down 200 instead of 400. The practical conclusion, however, did not depend on particular instances of this kind. It was a sufficient objection to the present mode of taking the returns, that the clergy viewed them with distrust, or rather with the fullest conviction that they were, on the whole, gross misrepresentations of the real state of the case. He had not made these statements in an invidious sense, or with the view of disparaging the Dissenters, but they had no right to presume that any body of men were above temptation. They had no right to place the Dissenters in circumstances in which they were exposed to the strongest of all temptations, or to leave matters of this importance to rest on the discretion of persons who were deeply interested in putting forward a certain view of the case. He really would not say whether, under similar circumstances, if the clergy of the Church of England were to be placed in a similar condition, they would be superior to the like temptation. He should hope and wish to believe that they would, but really he could not, under such circumstances, answer for them any more than for any other body of men. It was unfair to the Dissenters themselves, and highly prejudicial to the public interest, to expose them to the temptation of making such misrepresentations. He thought with a view to the future it was perfectly clear those returns could never accomplish the object for which they were designed if they were made in the manner in which the last returns had been made, and he could not himself see how they were ever to guard against such misrepresentations. Any day which might be appointed for the taking of the Census would be sure to be considered by the Dissenting bodies as the occasion for a trial of strength, on which, by canvassing in private and holding out the greatest possible attraction in public, they would endeavour to make a grand demonstration of the growing success of their cause. If the same plan was to be adopted in future, he hoped that some check would be devised which would be an effectual security against the abuses and misrepresentations which had, he was convinced, been but very imperfectly disclosed by the statements which had been made to the House.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the right rev. Prelate had most legitimately brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships, and the only regret he had in rising was, that in refusing to accede to the Motion, he should seem to place himself in opposition to the representatives of the Church of England in that House, especially on a matter on which they called for more ample and truthful information to the country at large. But, at the same time, he thought he could give reasons why it was not desirable to accede to the Motion for the returns moved for by the right rev. Prelate. The fact was, that the Census Office was now shut up, and their accounts closed; the returns were also very numerous, amounting to nearly 40,000—or, to be quite accurate, 37,381. But the great reason why he could not well consent, consistently with good faith, to the production of these returns, was, that in the circular printed and circulated by desire of the Secretary of State, it was stated that it was not intended that all the particulars in the returns should be published. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. He heartily agreed in what the right rev. Prelate who spoke last said, as to the regret which he felt that some other legal arrangements did not exist when the Census was taken. He thought it would be most desirable that information which the public were so anxious to have should have been made compulsory, and an untruthful answer declared to be penal. At the same time he could not help feeling that the discussions in that House upon the conduct of the Secretary of State in somewhat overstepping the bounds of legality by sending these queries with the first form had to some extent caused the evil complained of, because it increased the unwillingness of district clergymen to fill up the returns, and this naturally produced an unfavourable impression as to the numbers belonging to the Established Church. His right rev. Friend did not raise any question against the Census Office, or the manner in which its duties had been performed, but his complaint was, that, on the one band, the Church of England returns did not give a sufficient statement of the numbers attending places of worship belonging to the Established Church, while, on the other hand, the numbers attending the Dissenting chapels were exaggerated. It was impossible for him to give an official opinion on this subject; but from the facts he had stated, arising out of the debates that took place in that House, he did think it was made out that the returns as to the Church were below the numbers that ought to have been given. As to the Dissenters, he likewise shrank from giving any official opinion. The right rev. Prelates, no doubt, seemed to have made out a strong case, and the Dissenters, he had no doubt, would take some public opportunity of telling their own story, and the public would judge between the two. Some of the facts mentioned by the right rev. Prelate were strong, others were not so. His statement, for example, as to the weather having given an advantage to Dissenters was not a strong fact, fur both would be equally affected by this, and the weather no doubt varied in different parts of the country. As to the Roman Catholics, he would only observe, with reference to the number of sittings they possessed, that their services were short and more frequent than ours, and therefore it was obvious that their chapels gave accommodation to more persons than Protestant churches did, where the services were longer and the attendances more rare. He hoped he had said enough to show that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion. At the same time, he was glad the statement had been made, that it might be considered by the public. Such answers as could be given would no doubt be put forward by the Dissenters, and the public would then be able to judge more accurately upon the subject. He wished to say one word as to what had fallen from a noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the other day on the subject of these returns. The noble Earl had said that the returns were perfectly useless, and that not twenty persons looked at them. Now, this was not borne out by the facts, for he had been informed that of one edition of these returns 21,000 copies were sold almost as soon as published. With respect to the increase of expense attending the Census, the former Census having cost 23,500l., while the latter cost 170,000l., the noble Earl was mistaken. The mistake was a natural one for him to make, for he was probably not aware that the former Census was paid entirely out of the poor rate; and that while it cost 5l. 9s. per thousand, the last cost 5ll. 4s. per thousand, being a saving of 5s. per thousand, while much more information had been obtained. The estimate was 150,000l., but only 127,000l. was expended, thus leaving a considerable sum to be returned to the Treasury. It was necessary to state these facts, as it would create an unfounded prejudice against the manner of doing the business if the statements which had been made remained uncontradicted. He might add, in justice to the Registrar General, that he had been informed by the head of his department, that in his conduct of the whole business he showed great powers of administration and great care for the public interest in every possible way.

THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

said, that in Wales, owing to one portion of the members of the Church of England being Welsh and the other English, of two services performed on the same day one was performed in Welsh and the other in English, therefore only one-half the congregation of a church attended each service. This did not apply to the Dissenters, whose congregations were generally all of one country, and, therefore, all attended each service.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Earl Granville) he could not of course press for these returns, but he thought that the promise which had been referred to was one which ought not to have been given, as it was a direct temptation to an unscrupulous person to send inaccurate returns. He was convinced that no provision could meet the difficulty arising from taking the returns of the people attending the churches and chapels on a certain known day, as it would by both sides be considered a trial of strength, and would be no proof of the real religious state of the districts. Therefore, if this information was to be obtained again, he most earnestly trusted that the returns would be taken in some other way than from the attendance in places of worship on a notified Sunday.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

House adjourned to Thursday next.