Review

The 1851 census of religious accommodation and worship is an undisputed crown jewel of primary sources for the study of British church history, and its utility is being progressively enhanced by the publication of scholarly editions of the original schedules held at The National Archives in Kew. Warwickshire is the latest county to receive this treatment. A once largely rural area, it had a population of almost 500,000 in 1851, nearly half of which lived in the burgeoning industrial metropolis of Birmingham, Edgbaston, and Aston. Keith Geary, a retired geography teacher now working toward a doctorate in Victorian religious diversity, is to be congratulated on producing an exemplary transcription of the returns for 589 places of worship (279 Anglican, 285 Nonconformist, twenty-four Roman Catholic, and one synagogue). The total incorporates those from parishes still in neighbouring counties in 1851 but subsequently transferred to Warwickshire. These schedules are set out in full (date of completion apart), exceptionally clearly and with generous spacing, in registration district and sub-district order (while correcting obvious misfiling) and overlain with a running number. Access to the entries is facilitated by a trio of indexes, by persons, places, and subject (including denomination), which cross-refer to this number. Most returns are enriched by biographical notes on informants, extracted from the Clergy List (for Anglican incumbents) and the 1851 census of population or White's History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Warwickshire (for Nonconformist ministers and lay officers).The text is preceded by a substantial introduction (1–83) which would occasionally benefit from a sharper focus and greater brevity. This commences with three short sections (1–11) which outline the methodology of the census, assess its reliability, and describe the settlement pattern (urban/rural, open/closed) in Warwickshire. There then follows a thematic analysis of the results of the census, extensively illustrated from individual forms and with some allowance for missing and defective returns, in terms of accommodation, ages of places of worship, endowments and income, service provision, attendance, and Sunday schools (11–43). The index of attendance (congregations at all services expressed as a percentage of population) was fifty-two, nine points below the English and Welsh mean, but with a wide variation by registration district, from thirty-eight in Birmingham to 109 in Atherstone. Disappointingly, Geary does not systematically compare actual attendances on census day (30 March) with the average figures, which were also often given for preceding months, notwithstanding widespread comment by informants (among them several Methodists) about the adverse effects of Mid-Lent or Mothering Sunday. The introduction is rounded off by a denominational analysis of the results (43–74) and a set of denominational distribution maps (76–83). There is particular discussion of Methodism on 51–55. A limited range of modern secondary literature is drawn upon to provide historical context at this point, but some opportunities are missed. For example, it is surprising that Geary's discussion of the occupational basis of Nonconformity fails to cite the Warwickshire non-parochial registers tabulated by Michael Watts in The Dissenters (1995).Among the 589 returns there were 137 for the various Methodist bodies, excluding Lady Huntingdon's Connexion and Welsh Calvinistic Methodists. Of these ninety-three were Wesleyan (seventy-nine being permanent chapels), thirty-three Primitive Methodist, four Independent Methodist, three New Connexion, two Wesleyan Methodist Association, and two Wesleyan Reform. However, one of the two Wesleyan chapels recorded by Geary for Kenilworth looks suspiciously like a Wesleyan Reform congregation, temporarily gathering in a Baptist venue. Collectively, the Methodist returns accounted for 23 per cent of all places of worship but only 13 per cent of both sittings and estimated attenders. Wesleyan worshippers were fairly well spread throughout the county, but Primitive Methodists were relatively concentrated in the Cotswold Edge and Foleshill registration districts. The figures may represent an undercount for, although Geary claims, in relation to Methodism, ‘there is little to suggest that more than the odd congregation was missed’ (8), no evidence is brought forward in support of the statement. Certainly, he does not appear to have cross-checked the census against contemporary circuit plans and other church archives, a technique which in other counties has uncovered the omission of sundry Methodist societies, especially those meeting in temporary buildings, including private houses. Occasional remarks on the forms elucidate the basic statistics, such as the fact that at Upper Quinton the Wesleyans still avoided holding services during church hours, while at Welford they were teaching Sunday scholars according to the church catechism and bringing them to the parish church on Sunday mornings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.