Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

MR. GEE'S CENSUS.

News
Cite
Share

MR. GEE'S CENSUS. The following letter, written by Canon Bevan, of Hay, a most careful statistician, is reprinted from the Western Mail \— Mr Gee has recently communicated to the public the results of his so-called census of 1887. As there are no means at hand for testing the accuracy of his figures, they must pass for what tbey are worth as a mere ex parte statement proceeding from a hostile quarter. I may, however, draw attention to what seems to me a serious discrepancy be- tween these returns and the returns of the number of members" as given in the official reports of the more important Nonconformist bodies. A comparison of these latter with one another reveals the curious fact that if you divide the counties of North Wales into two groups, Eastern and Western, the number of members in the Western group is double of that in the Eastern group, the population being, of course, taken into account in each case. Now, it seems but natural to expect that the total strength of the bodies would be proportioned to the number of their members. But this is by no means the case; for, ac- cording to Mr Gee's figures, the attendance in the two groups vary only in the proportion of 74 per cent. in the Western and 60 in the Eastern. However this discrepancy is to be accounted for, it is undoubtedly worthy of observation, particularly in connection with the question of Welsh denominational statis- tics. For if the standard of piety in the two groups is at the same level, there must, one would think, be exaggeration either in the number of the members in the Western or in Mr Gee's census of the Fastern group. But a further result of the discrepancy is that the number of communicants can no longer be regarded as a sound basis for estimating the total strength of the bodies for if the factor that is to convert the number of members into the corresponding number of adherents or into the corresponding section of the total population is so uncertain, as it must be if both Mr Gee's census and the numbers of the members are equally true, what sort of calcu- lation can be founded on the data ? Apply to the Western group the factor supplied by the Eastern, and you find that the number of Nonconformists is in excess of the whole population, Apply to the Eastern the factor supplied by the Western, and there is ample room for a large majority of Churchmen in the former group. It is by the treatment of Wales as a whole that such fallacious esti- mates have been made as to the number of Churchmen; for instance, by the late Dr. Bees and by Mr Dillwyn in his speeches at Swansea in 1884 and in the House of Com- mons in 1886—estimates founded mainly on the returns of the Nonconformist bodies. If the simple expedient were tried of dividing Wales into Eastern and Western portions, it would be found that there is room in the former alone for a larger number of Church- men than Mr Dillwyn allowed for the whole of Wales. But the point which I wish to discuss in this letter is not so much the figures themselves as the deduction Mr Gee has drawn from them as to the relative growth of the two bodies in the interval that has elapsed between the censuses of 1887 and 1851. In an article which appeared in the Baner of the 12th ult., he states that the Nonconformist attendances at the morning and evening meet- ings of 1887 exceeded those of the correspond- ing meetings in 1851 by 97,345, while the Church attendances exceeded only by 36,017, whence he draws the conclusion that the increase of Nonconformity is three times as great as that of the Church. I purpose to inquire to what extent this conclusion is well- founded. It does not give me much confidence in Mr Gee as a statistician to find that at the very outset he makes a blunder to the amount of 3,482 in estimating the Nonconformist at- tendance at the evening meeting in 1851. This arises from his treating the afternoon service of the Church as if it were an "evening" one, and making use of its figures to calculate the amount of the Nonconformist attendance at the later period of the day. A far more serious flaw in his calculation arises out of the fact that he has omitted all reference to the Nonconformist afternoon attendance of 1851, amounting to 71,640. He may think this omission of no moment, inasmuch as he has in a similar manner omitted all reference to the evening attendance of Churchmen. But it is really of great moment in estimating the progress of each body independently of the other, and in determining whether Mr Gee is justified in representing the advance of the Nonconformist attendance as 97,345. It is perfectly certain that the afternoon meeting in 1851 drew off from the attendances at the morning and evening meetings, and much of the increase he has noted may mean nothing more than that the Nonconformists bestirred themselves earlier in the day in 1887, because there was no afternoon meeting on that occasion. This explanation receives con- firmation from the fact that the rate of ad- vance in the morning attendance in 1881 as compared with that in 1851 is doubly as great asin the evening attendance. It would have been more fair in Mr Gee to compare the total attendances at chapel on each occasion, in which case his surplus would have dwindled down to very small dimensions. If, however, he objects to this, I would propose as an alternative, and, indeed, as on the whole a fairer test, the inclusion of the Sun- day School attendance on both occasions, so that the total attendances might be taken in- to account. This would allow of the dis- tribution of the afternoon attendance of 1851 between the three meetings, and thus the parallel between the two censuses would be pretty well adjusted, for the Sunday School attendance in 1887 must have gained in numbers by the absence of the afternoon meet- ing which competed with it in 1851. Mr Gee has (somewhat singularly, as I think) omitted all reference to the Sunday School at- tendance of 1851. I suggest that he should make good this omission. I may notice a further point in which some adjustment is required in order to establish a lair comparison between the two censuses. The census of 1851 was, or, at all events, pro- fessed to be a census of religious worship." Such is its official title, and those who were enumerated are spoken of in the reports as worshippers." Mr Gee's census is one of at- tendance simply in which non-worshippers were included; for its directions were that the youngest infants (y babanod) were to be counted. It would, indeed, be a mistake to regard the meeting on the occasion of Mr Gee's census as in any sense one for religious worship. It might more truly be described as a political gathering for the purpose of pass- ing plebiscite in favour of disestablishment, for which purpose Mr Gee, of his grace, conferred the franchise on the babies of the Noncon- formist parents, on the sole condition that they were brought to the hustings. Nothing j of this sort was done in 1851, and in so far as the invitation to bring the babies was acted upon in 1887, the parallel between the two censuses is incomplete. Another most serious flaw in Mr Gee's calculation is that he omits all reference to the amount of the population at the time of each census. In his eagerness to show that Nonconformity had made more rapid strides than the Church, he has lost sight of the question whether it has advanced in reference to the population which is tantamount to asking whether it has advanced at all. It is, of course, perfectly possible that it may have increased in reference to its own original numbers, and yet have decreased in com- parison with the population. In other words, an absolute increase is one incompatible with a relative decrease. There is no official record (as far as I know) of the population of North Wales for any later date than 1881 but it is easy to form an approximative estimate for 1887 by assuming that the annual rate ef ad- vance has been equal to that which prevailed in the previous decennial period. The result of such a comparison as I have suggested, that is to say, between the total at- tendances of the day at chapel and school, taken in connection with the amount of popu- lation, will be to show (if my calculations are correct) that Nonconformity has receded in- stead of advanced. No such question arises with regard to the Church, for whatever figures we take, even the crude figures given in Mr Gee's article, it can be shown to have advanced. It has, if my calculation is correct, advanced just as much as Nonconformity has receded. And the combined effect of these movements sufficiently shows in which direction things are tending in North Wales. Let me not, however, be misunderstood as relying on the figuers of Mr Gee's census, or, indeed, of any attendance census, to furnish a secure basis for an exact calculation as to the relative strength of the two bodies, still less as to the more delicate question of their relative advance or retrocession. My contention is that an attendance census is absolutely worthless for such purposes. Mr Gee himself partly allows this when he asserts that his figures -11 place the attendances at the churches in much too favourable a light," in consequence, I suppose, of the trickeries, devices, threats, and bribes" of which he accuses churchmen. This is not the first time that Nonconformists have forced upon the Church a proceeding most repulsive to their feelings of reverence for God's house, and then have abused them for their conduct under the infliction. The truth is that the pro- ceeding is tainted with trickery from first to last-ttickery in obtaining the figures and trickery in manipulating them when obtained. If Mr. Gee can show that Nonconformity has advanced three times as fast as the Church in the 26 years that have elapsed between the censuses, and if I can show from the very same figures that the Church has advanced just in the same proportion as Nonconformity has receded, there must be either trickery or gross blundering on one side or the other. I do not say intentional trickery, because I have no wish to accuse Mr. Gee of that from which I believe myself to be free. But I may, perhaps, without offence assert that Mr Gee has not taken pains to look aU round the subject, and that if he had done so he would have abstained from commenting on his own figures in the unfair and ungenerous spirit he his ex- hibited.

THE WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION…

IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL…

[No title]

PRINCE GEORGE OF WALES AND…

[No title]

RAILWAY TIME TABLES.—JULY,…

Advertising