Morning Chronicle, in reply.

As soon as my statistical case appeared, he attacked it in a letter full of egregious errors, yet treating my case "as a mere card-castle, which needs but be blown upon, and it is gone." When my letters were complete, he answered them by the elaborate article in the British Quarterly. And to my comments on the review he has now published another "Reply." I should have preferred to meet a different opponent. But not having had the choice, I could not honourably decline the controversy. It would be affectation in me to pretend, that on this politico-statistical question I am conscious of inferiority to Dr. Vaughan, however I might have felt on any other question. I am in the line of my profession, in the line of my previous researches, and I hope in the line of duty. I cannot retreat without discredit. Nor will I.

Dr. Vaughan began this controversy, entirely ignorant of the returns which form the basis of all our statistical knowledge on the subject, namely, those of Lord Kerry in 1833. At first he treated those returns as an ignis fatuus; and afterwards he made that ignis fatuus the cornerstone of his own structure! But in doing this he forgot; first, that those returns were below the truth when obtained; and second, that the incomplete returns of 1833 formed a very bog of a foundation for an argument on the state of things in 1846. In all my experience, I hardly remember an omission so enormous and inconceivable as Dr. Vaughan's omission, in his long article in the British Quarterly, to notice the addition of school accommodation for 600,000 or 650,000 children in the short space of thirteen years, from 1833 to 1846! It was playing Hamlet with the omission of the part of Hamlet. In the first fourteen pages of his article, containing all his most striking calculations and conclusions, marked with every emphasis of italics and capitals,-conclusions most dishonouring to the character of the nation, and most alarming to the friends of knowledge, he not merely builds entirely on Lord Kerry's returns of thirteen years back, but he also goes on the principle of requiring all the children from five to fifteen years of age to be at school at the same time! Here is a twofold error, the combined results of which are frightful; for Dr. Vaughan himself now admits, that "five years is as long an average of schooling as we can calculate upon:" and consequently when he assumed that the whole number of children should be at school ten years, he was wrong just 100 per cent. He says in his "Reply," that he warned his readers what he was about to do. I answer, that he did not warn his hearers that he was about to build his calculations on an unreal and fallacious basis. He said that he was about "just now to confine his attention to the proportion of the population between four and fourteen, and to the question, in what extent were this portion of the population found either in day-schools or in Sunday-schools;" but he gave no intimation that this "proportion of the population" was more than could be expected to be found in schools, still less that it was double that number. I appeal to every reader of the article in the British Quarterly, whether the conclusions of the early part of that article do not bear every mark of being the definitive and solemn conclusions of the writer, and whether they do not leave the impression that only one

third of the population of the school age was receiving day-school instruction, whilst "the proportion not receiving any daily instruction is as two-thirds."

Dr. Vaughan's words are these, the italics and capitals being his own:

"Taking this Report of Lord Kerry as our guide, ws see our conclusion-the proportion of day-scholars between these ages (four and fourteen) is as ONE-THIRD, and the proportion not receiving any daily instruction is as TWO-THIRDS." p. 449.

"The conclusions, then, to which we come from these authorities-and to which we may come, we presume, without the fear of questioning-are, in substance, such as we have stated, viz., That the population between the ages of five and fifteen in the larger and lesser towns of England, taken together, the proportion, from ALL CLASSES, found in day-schools, at any one time, would be somewhat less than ONE-THIRD; that about an equal number would be found receiving Sunday-school instruction ONLY; and that the remaining number, consisting of greatly MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE WHOLE, must be reckoned as not found in ANY school whatever-day-school, evening-school, or Sunday-school." p. 456.

"So that reckoning the total population of the two countries at 14,400,000, and the onefourth between four and fourteen as 3,600,000, of this latter number something LESS THAN A THIRD were found in day-schools; considerably LESS THAN A THIRD IN SUNDAY-schools ONLY; and NEARLY ONE MILLION AND A HALF IN NO SCHOOL WHATEVER." p. 457.

Such are the emphatic " conclusions," thrice repeated, as the result of elaborate calculations, in the first fourteen pages of the article. What can possibly be the motive for thus constructing and reconstructing these huge and alarming fallacies ? If this is a reasonable or fair way of writing articles on momentous practical questions, I give up all pretensions to judgment on the point. In my opinion, it is the most misleading course possible. Nor are these the only passages; but many others are extracted from the reports of the Manchester Statistical Society and the Rev. B. W. Noel, every one of which is founded on the same outrageous fallacy, as well as pervaded with gross errors as to numbers, and the whole of which Dr. Vaughan quotes as though they were unimpeachable! If I had read the article in some other publications, I should have pronounced it the darkest libel and calumny on the people of England I had ever

seen.

There is a passage in Dr. Vaughan's "Reply," so grotesquely inconsistent with his own statements elsewhere, and so fatal to his own argument, that I am lost in astonishment at the forgetfulness which could allow him to publish it. In two passages above quoted, from the British Quarterly, Dr. Vaughan states, that “onethird of the population would be found receiving Sunday-school instruction ONLY," p. 456; that 'considerably less than a third were in Sunday. schools ONLY," p. 457. Again he says

66

"Even Mr. Baines does not report much more than half the children in our Sunday-schools as capable of reading the Bible; and if a portion of this incapacity is to be attributed to the extreme youth of the scholars, much of it is to be traced to an absence, entirely, or nearly so, of days school instruction." p. 460.

From these passages it would be inferred that a large proportion of the children, perhaps approaching one-third of the whole, attended Sunday-schools, without ever attending day-schools. But in his "Reply," prefixed to the republished article of the British Quarterly, Dr. Vaughan gives us the following very curious and important note:

"But it will, perhaps, be said, that many children learn to read in Sunday-schools. I have selected two Sunday-schools, near Manchester, of a description likely to give a fair average in this respect of Sunday-schools in general in the manufacturing districts. In one, the total of children was 315, of which number 182 attended both day and Sunday-schools; 124 had been day-scholars, but were now Sundayscholars only! leaving nine only, out of 315, as the number who had never been at any day-school.

"In the next school, situated amidst the dense factory population of Salford, the total number was 1,150, of which number 434 attended both day and Sunday-schools; 674 had been day scholars, but were now Sunday-scholars only leaving forty-two only, out of 1,150, as the number who had never been at any day-school.

"It will, I think, be found upon inquiry, as indicated in this result, that in England Sunday-schools prove to be of value as subsidiary to day-schools, but that children WHO NEVER BECOME DAYSCHOLARS, DO NOT OFTEN BECOME SUNDAYSCHOLARS."-Reply to Mr. E. Baines, Jun., p. 9. Now is not this in outrageous contradiction to the passages in the British Quarterly, published in the very same pamphlet with this Reply?" The Quarterly speaks of one-third of the population "receiving Sunday-school instruction ONLY;" whilst the "Reply" tells us, that "children who never become day-scholars do not often become Sunday-scholars." If the latter passage is to be believed, nearly all our Sunday-scholars have received more or less instruction in day-schools. But what follows from this? My statistical returns of the manufacturing districts, obtained in 1843, show that, in a population of 2,208,771, there were no less than 408,531 Sunday-scholars, or in the proportion of one Sunday-scholar to every five and two-fifths inhabitants. And if Dr. Vaughan be now right, nearly the whole of these must have been day-scholars too. The result is, that children in the proportion of one to every five and two-fifths of the entire population of these manufacturing districts, or nearly so, must have attended BOTH DAY AND SUNDAY-schools, and were found in the Sunday-schools AT ONE

TIME!

If this be so, it is by far the strongest fact ever yet published, to show the general education of the children in the manufacturing districts. And for this important and delightful fact we are indebted to Dr. Vaughan, in the preface to his dismal Jeremiad on the want of education in this country!

I hardly need remark, that the children of the upper classes do not attend Sunday-schools, and that comparatively few of the children of the middle classes are found there. The Sundayscholars generally belong to the operative classes. When, therefore, we find one Sunday-scholar to 5 2-5ths of the entire population, it is obvious that this comprehends an immense proportion of the children of school age among the working classes,-I may say nearly the whole, with the exception of the vicious and vagrant part of the

population. For 1 in 5 2-5ths is 18.51 per cent; and all the children in the country from 5 to 15 years of age are only 22.86 per cent. of the population. Now if the working classes form about three-fourths of the entire population, this 18.51 per cent. would represent the whole of the children of those classes from 5 to 15 years of age; nay, more than the whole; and we can only account for the largeness of the number of Sunday-scholars by the well-known fact, that many young persons remain in Sunday-schools to a considerably later age than 15. But here are the two facts; first, that there are found in the manufacturing districts 408,531 Sundayscholars in a population of 2,208,771, or 18.51 per cent.; and second, that, according to Dr. Vaughan's information, derived from average Sunday-schools, nearly all the Sunday-scholars have been in day-schools; and I say that those two facts, leading to the conclusion that an immense proportion of the children of the working classes receive both day-school and Sunday-school instruction, and remain in the Sunday-schools for the whole of the school-age, bear out all and more than all that I ever contended for, and disperse into thin air the alarming phantoms conjured up by Dr. Vaughan's nightmare arithmetic!

Dr. Vaughan, in the very same page which contains the above important note, attempts to torture my statistical returns of 1843 into a support of his own previous conclusion, that more than one-third of the children were growing up without day-school instruction and unable to read. Now my return gave 210,592 dayscholars in a population of 2,208,771, or 1 in every 10 of the population. But it was most distinctly stated that the returns of day-schools were, "by the express statement of the local committees, deficient," and the accountant who made them up attested that on this account "ten per cent. was scarcely too large an addition to be made to the number of scholars in the dayschools;" but "as it is desirable to be rather too low than too high in the estimate, he recommended that the number of day-schools should be regarded as only five per cent, below the truth." The addition of this five per cent. would have made the number of day-scholars 221,121; which would be in the proportion of rather more than 1 in 10 to the entire population. Now this proportion of 1 in 10 would allow of every child in the district receiving day-school instruction for upwards of 43 years. And if, on Dr. Vaughan's admission, 5 years in day-schools is "as long an average as we should calculate upon," it would follow that thirteen-fifteenths of the children were then receiving "as much schooling as we should calculate upon."

One circumstance would unfavourably but slightly affect this proportion. My returns included the children in infant schools, some of whom must have been below five years of age, in the number of day-scholars. I am unable to state the number of such infant-scholars, as the returns gave the scholars in "Dame and infant-schools" together, and their total number was 37,270. Dr. Vaughan sweeps the whole of these out of the number of day-scholars, though it is notorious that a large proportion of the children in dame-schools, and even in infant-schools, are five years old and upwards! I believe I shall be allowing too many if I allow that one-half of the 37,270, or 18,635, might be below five years of age. Deduct the 18,635 from the total

number of day-scholars, 221,121, and the number of day-scholars left above five years of age would be 202,486. These form a proportion of 9.16 per cent. to the whole population; and that proportion would allow every child in the district to be at school four years, or four-fifths of the children to be at school five years.

But of course we are not to consider the instruction received by the infants as of no value. Much the contrary.

And it is notorious that in the three years which have elapsed since my returns were taken, there has been a very great increase in the number of day-scholars. In Oldham, as I have shown in my first letter to Dr. Vaughan, public schools were opened within those three years, in which there was an actual attendance equal to one-third of all the day-scholars returned by me in 1843.

Combine all these circumstances together, and they go very far to confirm the encouraging view we have derived from Dr. Vaughan's inquiries as to Sunday-scholars and day-scholars in the manufacturing districts. They justify the belief that at this time there is an exceedingly large proportion of the children of the working classes receiving some measure of day-school instruction, as well as many years of Sundayschool instruction; and they dissipate the alarm produced by Dr. Vaughan's calculations in the British Quarterly.

Dr. Vaughan cites, in his "Reply," from the "Minutes of Council, 1844, p. 580, a return relative to the town of Burslem, (forgetting, however, to state the place to which it refers), showing the number of persons, who, on a census of the population, were found able to read, to write, or neither. The return gives 6,077 who can read, 4,709 who can write, and 3,240 who can do neither. And how was this census made? Did it inquire the number of persons who could read and write, above the age at which children usually learn to read and write? No; it actually asked these questions concerning all persons upwards of six years of age, that is, about the age that children usually BEGIN to learn! It is notorious that multitudes of children do not go to school, or learn to read, till after they are six years old: many children in welleducated families (as I know of personal knowledge) learn reading and writing at considerably later ages than this; and many who attend school are, from natural dulness or sickness, unable to read and write till one or two years after they begin to attend. It is obvious, therefore, that to ask these questions concerning all of six years old and upwards, is to obtain worthless and misleading returns. The inquiry ought to have commenced with the age at which education generally finishes, not with the age at which it begins. Yet Dr. Vaughan quotes this return as conveying an accurate view of the proportion of persons in the country who can, and who cannot, read and write!

I have stated that the reports of the Manchester Statistical Society, and of the Rev. B. W. Noel founded upon them, were exceedingly incorrect both in their figures, and in the principle on which their calculations were founded. The principle was, that the whole of the children ought to be in day-schools for ten years,-which I have shown, (and I have now Dr. Vaughan's admission as to my correctness on that point) to be just 100 per cent. wrong. But the figures

given as to the number of children in those towns at the time the census was taken, that is, in 1834, were very discreditably incorrect. For example, the number of children assumed by the Manchester Statistical Society as living in the towns of Manchester, Salford, and Liverpool, was 120,750: whilst the Official Census of 1841 shows that seven years later the actual number in those towns was only 121,148. In 1834 the numbers could not have been more than 98,300: and of course the Manchester Statistical Society's Report was in error 22,450, or 22 per cent. Now when the Society committed an error of 22 per cent. in the actual number of children, and an error of 100 per cent. in the proportion that ought to be at school-both errors telling on the same side-it is manifest that the conclusions drawn as to the proportions of the children at schools must have been indeed preposterous. Yet all these calculations and conclusions are adopted by Dr. Vaughan, without a doubt as to their correctness!

Mr. Noel's report, likewise trusted by Dr. Vaughan, is as incorrect as those of the Manchester Statistical Society. Writing in 1840, he gave the united population of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Salford, and Bury, as 685,000, and the proportion of children from 5 to 15 years as 171,250; whereas it was proved by the census taken one year later, that the population of those towns was 786,307, but the number of children only 162,897.

There are several other points of Dr. Vaughan's "Reply" which I had marked as inaccurate and open to refutation. But they are of inferior importance, such as my estimate of the amount expended on day-schools and Sunday-schools from 1818 to 1833 and 1846. I beg to say, that I entirely adhere to the estimates I gave; and moreover I believe, that in computing the Sunday-scholars at only two millions, I was at least half a million below the mark. But in this and many other things, which did not bear directly on the question of day-schools, I intentionally gave the most moderate estimates, in order to avoid cavil.

In an able article by Mr. Charles Knight, in the Companion to the British Almanac, for 1847, on the "Progress of Education in England," he estimates the total number of children receiving day-school and Sunday-school instruction at three millions and a half-being far above the amount to which I have carried it. He says

"Looking, then, to the prodigious exertions that have been made since 1833, we may conclude, that if any official returns were now before the Government, we should find such an increase of school-accommodation, and of children under instruction, as would leave little to be done beyond a steady perseverance in the same course of voluntary exertion with Government aid."—p. 19.

He afterwards, inconsistently with himself, speaks of the want of the means of education as still "very great." But, happily, he gives us the ground of his opinion, which is, that he assumes that every child in the country ought to be at school from 5 to 12 years of age, or seven years and a half. This is altogether out of the question, and the wrong assumption vitiates the conclusion drawn from it. I agree with Mr. Knight, except in one thing,-that I am sure the people can meet their own wants by "a steady perseverance in the same course of voluntary exertion," WITHOUT "Government aid."

SPA-FIELDS CHAPEL.-This venerable edifice, after undergoing thorough repairs, has just been re-opened; an event which has been signalized by the introduction of Christian Pastorship. This is another triumph added to truth, over error. For nearly seventy years the SupplySystem was practised at Spa-fields, till at length it fairly worked itself out. It was found that the alternative lay between a pastor and closed doors; thus the artificial has given place to the natural, or rather, the device of man to the appointment of Christ, who is exalted "to give pastors and teachers." The authors of the Supply System said, "The teacher will do, we will dispense with the superfluity of the pastor." But this was not the only improvement attempted on the Apostolic plan; the table of the Lord was free as the highway which led to the chapel: all distinction between the church and the world was entirely obliterated, and this. was called charity and Catholicity. One error leads to another, thus deepening the mischief as the process advances. There being no church formed, the concern was necessarily "managed" by certain individuals, whose qualifications for the office were not always of the highest order. The result of the whole was just what the result of such schemes will always be- utter failure. Such experiments, however, are of great value, and their results ought to be published for the instruction and warning of mankind. Under a complete pastorship, and conducted on New Testament principles, what an instrument of spiritual and moral good might not Spa-fields Chapel by this time have become-full of spiritual men, and surrounded with Christian institutions! Mr. Thoresby's appointment is a proper reparation of the chief error, and it will, we doubt not, bring along with it the correction of the other two. We do trust our excellent brother has looked well to all sides of the subject, and that he has commenced his labours without gag in his mouth, or fetter on his hands. The custom of the system heretofore has been generally to demand that the minister should commence his labours by subscribing himself-Slave! while the course and conclusion has generally corresponded with the commencement. But if, on the contrary, our brother shall satisfy himself with an attempt to effect a resurrection of the concern, we can foretel with certainty the issue. Let the prostitution of ordin. ances by open communion, with a despotic government in the hands of one or two opulent, rather than spiritual men-which has been the rule of such systems-be persevered in, and the office will inevitably prove as void of comfort as of honour, while for all evangelical purposes his labours will be powerless and unproductive. A noble work invites him, and we trust he may be found equal to the enterprise. Spa-fields Chapel is situated in an excellent neighbourhood, and we cannot but rejoice to see settled in it so enlightened, so active, and laborious a man. While we cordially welcome him to the Metropolis, we sincerely bid him God-speed!

STEPNEY MEETING.-The condition of Stepney has for a considerable time past been one of deep solicitude to the churches of the Metro

polis, and more especially to those of the immediate neighbourhood. Now, however, the danger which once threatened it is past, and its prospects are full of promise. This time-honoured and important church has at length obtained a pastor, the Rev. John Kennedy, M.A., late of Aberdeen. Mr. Kennedy is in the prime of life, broken in without being worn out; with the experience of a ten years' pastorship. He has left Scotland amid the regrets of his flock and of his brethren. But these are sacrifices which must be made for the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom. Times have greatly changed, and things with them, since the settlement of his eminent predecessor. The condition of the Stepney-church is considerably different, as also of the neighbourhood by which it is surrounded -differences which require a corresponding adaptation in order to an efficient pastoral ministration, and which differences we believe will be found in Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Fletcher came to the Metropolis with great and peculiar advantages. His fame had not only gone thither before him, but filled the nation. As a preacher, a tutor, and author, he was an object of general admiration, giving to his new charge more importance than he derived from it. Mr. Kennedy is a comparative stranger, and therefore appears under temporary disadvantages, which can only be removed by time and toil. His labours in the press having been limited, he has appeared but little before the English public. His excellent Memoir of the late lamented Alexander Campbell of Greenock, is not yet so generally known in the south as it deserves to be, but we trust at a day not distant to bring the volume before our readers.

HANOVER CHAPEL, PECKHAM.-We have great pleasure in announcing that the Rev. Henry Gamble, late of Margate, who has recently changed his views on the subject of Infant Baptism, has found an appropriate sphere of labour as the colleague of the Rev. Dr. Collyer, -an arrangement which we doubt not will prove an agreeable, as well as timely aid to the venerable pastor.

JEWIN-STREET CHAPEL.-In our last list of accessions to the London Ministry, we inadvertently omitted our friend, the Rev. Joseph Ford, who succeeds the late Rev. Thomas Wood, and who we hope will be the instrument of reviving the work of God in this ancient sanctuary.

WHITEFIELD CHAPEL, DRURY-LANE.-The Rev. J. Elrick, late of Sudbury, has accepted the pastoral charge of this place, vacant by the resignation of Rev. Charles Brake, and commenced his labours with encouraging prospects.

HOUNSLOW.-We have much pleasure in stating that our friend, the Rev. J. Dickinson, late of Kilmarnock, has accepted the pastoral charge of the church in this place; and we have seen with great satisfaction that he has already been successful in uniting the two churches, the one of which had been formed by a secession from the other; a happy commencement of a ministration which we trust will be lengthened and prosperous.

CHRONICLE OF THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF ENGLAND AND WALES: OF THE BOARD FOR GENERAL EDUCATION: AND OF THE THREE SOCIETIES FOR BRITISH MISSIONS. THE following appeal is published pursuant to instructions given by the Autumnal Meeting of the Union held at Plymouth last October. The previous proceedings of the Union on this subject will be found recorded in the WITNESS for June last, pp. 293-295, and for November last, pp. 539 and 540. Reference to these documents will enable the reader to perceive more clearly what is designed and proposed.

DEFERRED ANNUITY FUND FOR AGED MINISTERS. Appeal for Contributions to commence the Fund for aiding Ministers to effect Deferred Annuities for the support of their declining years.

The object is to establish for a minister a legal

claim to an annuity, commencing with his sixtyfirst year, and payable to him punctually, without risk or trouble, till his death.

The assistance to be offered for securing such annuity, is the payment of six pounds per annum towards the yearly sum for which a minister may, in his earlier years, insure this provision for old age. The rest to be provided by himself.

The beneficiaries of this fund are accredited Congregational Ministers, whose income, from all sources, is under two hundred pounds per annum, and who will insure for a Deferred Annuity of not less than fifty pounds. There are to be no restrictions as to the age at which the insurance may be effected, nor as to the amount of the annuity over fifty pounds; because the ⚫ assistance being uniformly six pounds yearly, the greater additional payment incurred by the higher amount, or later commencement, of the insurance, will be made by the minister himself.