So that in the afternoon, with only 537 fewer places open, the number of sittings was 1,139,759 fewer than in the morning. In the evening (when, of course, all the more important buildings which were open in the morning were again accessible to the public) the exertions of 3,744 additional preachers, nearly a third more, only rendered available 337,850 additional sittings, or about one-eleventh more; and they attracted only 97,668 additional hearers, an increase of less than one in twenty-one! It may, perhaps, be allowable to doubt whether the labours of non-resident, non-professional preachers can be attended with any results worth speaking of; but, at all events, their irregular ministrations can have no real bearing on the question whether the regular meeting-houses are used more or less frequently than the churches. Obviously, the fairest way would be to inquire which class of buildings are opened the oftener throughout the whole week; and, in that case, there is no doubt that the comparison would show greatly in favour of the churches. If, however, we must confine ourselves to Sunday, the proper question to ask would be—in how many cases there is a service before, and another after, noon? The answer, according to Table 16, would be as follows:— Churches. Meeting Houses. (per cent.) (per cent.) Town districts 85 75 Rural ditto 62 43 Whole country 66 51 If the investigation could be limited to the new accommodation, the result would strikingly show that the extra outlay on the churches had in no sense been thrown away.