that long and dreary period, all the prominent theologians, with a few bright exceptions, were either Dissenters or inclined to Dissent. The eighteenth century, too, was the golden age of popular Nonconformist preachers. Not to mention a host of smaller names, Wesley and Whitfield both rose, flourished, and died before its close. And yet, if we are to believe Mr. Mann, the Dissenters in 1801 were a much smaller body, compared with the whole population, than they were under the penal laws! {25} On the other hand, all who remember the obloquy and contempt under which the Church continued until the passing of the Reform Act, will reject, without a moment’s hesitation, the notion that, in 1831, she actually possessed more accommodation, in proportion to the population, than at the present day. The change which has taken place in the popular sentiment towards her has not been caused by any document like this Census report, which suddenly appeared and disabused the public mind of its preconceived ideas. It has, on the contrary, been brought about by the silent influence of those spectacles of zeal and self-denying liberality which have been witnessed in every corner of the land. The Church has, in fact, lived down her traducers. A hundred proverbs bear witness to the vast amount of good deeds which are required to remove an evil reputation; and yet Mr. Mann calls upon us to believe that the Establishment has achieved this, although, with all her numbers and all her wealth, she has not, since 1831, done so much as the Wesleyan sects alone, towards supplying the people with the means of religious instruction and worship! One has no language to characterize such a daring attempt on the public credulity. The most charitable hypothesis will be to conclude that Mr. Mann, though an arithmetician by his office, knows nothing about arithmetic; and so remit him to the consideration of Mr. Roebuck and the Administrative Reform Society. {26}