THE CENSUS. (Hansard, 27 March 1851)

The BISHOP of OXFORD
presented a petition from the Deanery of Newbury, complaining of their being called upon to answer certain questions contained in the papers issued from the Registrar General's office, in connexion with the Census, and praying that it may be made imperative to reply to such queries, or that they might not be made at all. The questions referred 630 to the number of persons attending churches, the number of scholars attending National and Sunday schools, and other points of a similar nature. The petitioners objected to these queries being issued—1, because replies would fail to be made to them in many instances; 2, because any replies which might be made must necessarily be vague and incorrect; 3, because the general result must be conducive to the propagation of error rather than truth; 4, because the incorrect information thus obtained would be made available to the prejudice of the great interests over which the ministers of the Church were bound to watch. The returns for the Census must be sent in by Monday next, and therefore no time should be lost in conveying to the clergy an indication of the opinion of that House as to whether they should reply to the queries which had been put to them or not. An opportunity had been afforded him of consulting many of his brother Prelates on this subject, and they were unanimously of opinion that the effect of answering the queries would be what the petitioners stated. The subject was alluded to in their Lordships' House a few days since; and, in consequence of what passed on that occasion, another paper had been issued from the Registrar General's office, stating that no person was bound under a penalty to answer the queries objected to. It appeared to him, however, that this was not all that should be done. It was necessary to intimate that answers to the queries were not expected at all. MR. Canning once observed that nothing was so fallacious as facts except statistics. If that remark were true, generally, how much more closely would it apply to such garbled statistics as must be obtained in answer to the proposed queries. Authentic information was only attainable when demanded under a penalty. Under these circumstances, he hoped that Ministers would intimate that answers to the objectionable queries would not now be insisted on, and, if the information sought for should continue to be thought requisite, an enactment might be passed previously to the taking of the next Census which would render it imperative on clergymen and others to answer the queries intended to elicit it. If consulted by the clergy of his diocese as to the course they ought to pursue, he should be inclined to advise them not to answer the queries, and yet he was unwilling to place himself in an antagonistic position towards the Govern- 631 ment in this matter, and to seem desirous of thwarting efforts which could only originate in good intentions.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that some alterations had been made in the papers sent out, in consequence of a conversation which took place in their Lordships' House a short time ago. There was one point which the Home Secretary was willing to withdraw—namely, the question as to the endowment of the Church of England benefices—not that this was originally an improper question to ask, but it seemed to have led to misapprehension on the part of the clergy of the Church of England, and it would therefore be withdrawn. With reference to the statistics of the spiritual and secular education of the people of this country, it would be a great disappointment to the public if no effort was made by the Government, when such an opportunity occurred, at no additional expense but the mere extra printing, to obtain information on so important a subject. At the same time, they had thought it right that the public should be informed of the inquiries which they were bound to answer under penalties, and those which were of a voluntary character. With regard to schools, it was impossible to obtain the addresses of all schoolmasters beforehand, and a letter had therefore been sent instructing all the enumerators to inform schoolmasters that they would not be liable to penalties for refusing to answer the questions directed to them. A letter had also been sent to the clergy, on the subject of the inquiries as to religious instruction, of a similar character, but pointing out that it was important to ascertain whether the spiritual instruction afforded had kept pace with the increased wants of the population of 1851. The letter concluded by saying that the Registrar General relied on the sense which these parties would probably entertain of the value of the information applied for, and that he respectfully "invited" their co-operation. The right rev. Prelate seemed to think that one of two things would happen; either that the returns would not be given at all, or that if given in, they would be of a most imperfect nature. Now, he (Earl Granville) did not consider that the last of these anticipations was correct. He believed that, if the returns were made at all, they would be of a generally correct and ample character. But he did admit there was some danger, as the matter at present stood, that, in some cases, there would be 632 objections to making any return at all. The right rev. Prelate had stated that, however unwilling to put himself into resistance to the Legislature, he could not, under the circumstances, do otherwise than sanction the objections to these returns likely to be offered by clergymen within his own diocese. He (Earl Granville) could only suggest that, while other religious bodies were willing to co-operate with the Government, and to supply all the information of the nature required, of which they were in possession, it could not but redound greatly to the disadvantage of the ministers of the Established Church if they were, on this occasion, to persist in their disinclination to make these important returns in reference to the position and circumstances of their own Church throughout the country. He believed that this suggestion would have some force, and he did hope that, on further consideration, the right rev. Prelate would see the propriety of using all his influence over the clergy whom he superintended to induce them to meet the Government in this matter. With regard to the request that the Government would now pledge themselves not to tabulate these returns, he had to state that the instructions of the Act were specific, precluding any such pledge.

The BISHOP of SALISBURY
thought it right to make some reference to the suggestion of the noble Earl that if the ministers of the Established Church declined making these returns, they would stand in a position disadvantageous as contrasted with the conduct of ministers of other Churches. Now there was nothing in the remarks of his right rev. Friend to justify the assumption that clergymen of the Established Church did object to make any full and fair returns required by the Legislature, or invited by the Government. Their objection was to making returns which would be necessarily incomplete. In his mind there was no doubt whatever that these returns would be imperfect, and that from their imperfections inferences would be drawn, unjust, mischievous, and dangerous. The Church of England had no reason to shrink from the closest examination; and if at any time the clergymen of that Church were called upon and found it in their power to make returns which would be accurately descriptive of her true position, the noble Earl would find them anxious and willing to lend all the aid at their disposal.

§ EARL FITZWILLIAM
considered that 633 some of the returns asked for, from clergymen, were perfectly legitimate in character, and would be made accurately and without the least difficulty. But he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) that some of the questions, such as that having reference to the number of persons frequenting churches, were improper, inasmuch as in nine cases out of ten the return would be imperfect and misleading. He was, therefore, of opinion that the right rev. Bench had good grounds for calling on the Government not to press for, and not to exact, replies to those objectionable applications. At any rate, it should be understood that the returns would not be tabulated.

§ The MARQUESS of BREADALBANE
said, that he altogether disagreed with the right rev. Prelates who had offered these objections. That the returns, in many cases, would be incomplete, might be true; but that was no reason why they should ask for no information at all. The ministers of Dissenting denominations had not intimated any unwillingness to make the required returns; and he could not attribute it to anything but laziness to find this opposition on the part of clergymen of the Established Church.

The BISHOP of OXFORD
could assure the noble Earl that he did not object to one question, but to nearly all the questions in the document issued by the Registrar General. The noble Marquess had accused the clergymen of the Established Church of laziness. That was not very fair. They were not too lazy to make proper returns, but they did object to making improper returns. And even supposing that they were enabled to make correct returns, they would still be justified in objecting to these returns being asked for, and, if obtained, to their being tabulated; and for this reason, that other parties could not possibly make equally correct returns; that over such returns there would be no check; and that consequently on the whole the result would be mischievous and misleading. It was his opinion that it was, for every reason, better that they should have no information of this kind rather than imperfect information.