“New Zealand Race,” whereas the number was 1818 in the last Census Tables:— the children of European parents returned as “New Zealanders,” (apparently only because they were born since the arrival of their parents in the Colony), being now transferred, as respects “Race,” to the same columns with their Fathers. The precise kind of information which may be desired on this point, will, I apprehend, be found in another part of the Table (No. 2), in which the respective numbers of those who arrived in the Colony by Immigration and of those who were Born in it are separately specified.

In Table No. 3, the Religious Persuasions are arranged in distinct columns for all Denominations having as many as five avowed members,—the Presbyterians being, however, brought together in one column headed “Free Church of Scotland and Other Presbyterians,” (the “Free Church of Scotland” being specified because it is the only Presbyterian Body in the Province having Ministers appearing as Officiating Ministers in the List published under the provisions of “The Marriage Act, 1854.”). Persuasions having less than five adherents are grouped under the general heading of “Other Denominations.”

Three of the columns have the apparently indefinite headings of “Protestants,” “Methodists,” and “Dissenters and Nonconformists,” respectively; but the numbers were so returned in the Schedules, and I could not feel at liberty to determine to what particular ecclesiastical Body the persons severally belonged. In many of the Schedules the term “Denomination” was substituted for the original term “Sect,” to which strong objection has always been urged from quarters entitled to high respect; and I cannot but express a hope that, before the arrival of the period for another General Census, a Schedule will be authorised for universal use, in which, (with other improvements suggested by experience), there will be a final alteration of the word “Sect,”—which gives great, and altogether unnecessary, offence—to a term such as “Denomination,” which for the purposes of the Census, will be completely an equivalent, and will not occasion similar dissatisfaction.

Religion.

The Table (No. 4), containing a classification of Occupations, was prepared in its present condensed form only after considerable effort to make it more particular, without swelling it to too great an extent, or risking its becoming misleading in effect, however verbally in accordance with the Schedules. But, the vagueness of many of the descriptions,—the fact that the same persons frequently follow more than one calling, and, not improbably, have sometimes returned that to which they were brought up, and to which they would still prefer to devote themselves, rather than that in which circumstances compel them to be now principally engaged,—the variety of names given to what may be regarded as substantially the same occupation,—these and analogous difficulties induced me to compress the details under the comparatively few general headings in the Tables. Possibly it is in consequence of such difficulties that no attempts to classify the Occupations of the Population appear in the latest Census Returns published in some of the other Provinces of the Colony;—while, in an elaborate series of Abstracts of the Census of New South Wales issued during the present year, similar “inherent difficulties” are assigned by the Registrar-General (in a Report prefixed to the Returns) as embarrassing a classification which, even there, is restricted to a few Heads,—some of these, moreover, (such as “Wine-growing,” “Miners in Gold and Silver,” &c.,) relating to Occupations which have little or no distinct existence here.

Occupations.

It may be noticed that, in this Table, the “City” is not distinguished from the “Other Parts of the Province.” The reason is, that so many of the persons engaged in commercial, professional, official, and other occupations live outside the boundaries of the City, and have filled up their Schedules in the Districts in which they reside, (not in those in which their business is transacted), that such a division must almost unavoidably have led to incorrect conclusions. This last remark, indeed, should be borne in mind (according to the nature of the respective cases) in order to guard against possible misconceptions as to the accuracy of the Tables generally.