Comment on this would be superfluous. If such be really the state of the case it would be idle to waste time in wrangling over inaccuracies in the returns. If Dissent is gaining on the Church at the rate of 50,000, sittings per year, whatever may be wrong in the present totals must soon be corrected; and the Church must make up its mind, ere long, to sink down into a minority. The only question is, does the Census Report state the truth? _It does not_. On the contrary, it states the very reverse of the truth. It is not merely inaccurate, but altogether false. Mr. Mann’s figures—although they have hitherto been accepted on all sides as if they were “proofs of Holy Writ”—rest upon no positive data whatever. So far, indeed, are they from possessing any claim upon the confidence of the public, the smallest effort of common sense, the most transient recollection of principles laid down by the immortal Cocker, would have warned Mr. Mann that the process he has adopted could not possibly lead to a correct result. It appears that as soon as the 30,610 districts into which the country was divided for the purposes of the census had been marked out, the enumerator in each was directed to return to the head office a list of all the places of worship within his jurisdiction. The result was to obtain information respecting 14,077 churches or chapels, and 20,390 dissenting meetings. Circulars were then sent out to the clergy, the ministers, or other official persons, requesting to know, amongst other things, the number of attendants on Sunday, the 30th of March, 1851, the number of sittings, and the date at which the building was erected, or first appropriated to religious worship (if since 1801). The report adds that—“When delivering the schedules to the proper parties, the enumerators told them it was not compulsory upon them to reply to the inquiries; but that their compliance with the invitation was entirely left to their own sense of the importance and the value to the public of the information sought.” As might have been expected there were very many instances in which no returns were made. These instances were “principally places of worship in connexion with the Church of England,—several of the clergy having entertained some scruples about complying with an invitation not proceeding from episcopal authority. In all such cases, a second application was made direct from the Census-office, and this generally was favoured by a courteous return of the particulars desired. The few remaining cases were remitted to the registrar, who either got the necessary information from the secular officers of the church, or else supplied, from his own knowledge, or from the most attainable and accurate sources, an estimate of the number of sittings and of the usual congregation.” After all, the number of sittings could not be obtained in 2,134 cases, the number of attendants in 1,004, and the number either of sittings or attendants in 390.