PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTERS. (Hansard, 13 June 1845)

§ Mr. Hindley
moved for a return of the names of the persons receiving the allowance granted to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, with the names of the trustees administering the same. When he had presented, on the late Maynooth discussion, so many petitions from 529 the Dissenters, disclaiming a State allowance, he felt it would be inconsistent not to discard a grant of this kind. He called on the Government to withdraw it, or to give the names of those who received it. The Dissenters felt it a reflection that they should be supposed to receive Government support in this way, just, as he dared say, the Government would be disposed to disavow the truth of a rumour which he heard generally circulated, that a Member of the Cabinet, though drawing a large income from the State paid no Income Tax. [Cries of "Name, name," from, the Ministerial bench.] He was glad this was felt as a home thrust; and he should say at once the individual he referred to was the Lord Chancellor. He hoped, as the Government felt this imputation so strongly, that they would not refuse his Return.

§ Mr. Cardwell
opposed the Motion. The hon. Member had made a similar Motion before, and the House had refused, except in a modified form. In that form he had no objection to grant it them. The facts of the case were these: — A small grant of 1,700l. a year had been given to the Dissenting body since the time of George I., and it was distributed in sums of 5l. and upwards among the ministers, under the sanction of trustees, of whom three were Presbyterian, three Independent, and three Baptist. The treasurer, Dr. Reed, had written to him in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member then before the House, and stated that there were grave objections to communicating the names of the recipients of that bounty, because they were mostly men of academical education, who had their small stipends eked out with that allowance: and who were struggling to keep up a position in society which they could not do, if such communication was made public. He had, however, no objection to a Return similar to one obtained by the hon. Member for Montrose in relation to the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland: and it would, without disclosing the names of the parties receiving the money, give all the substantial information required.

Mr. Williams
considered that the House had a right to know the names of those persons who received the public money; and he was of opinion that those who had an objection to the publication of their names should not accept it. He suggested a classification of the sums paid, and the 530 numbers of those who belonged to the several classes. According to his view of the case, no sect which professed to maintain its own clergy should receive anything from the public.

§ Dr. Bowring
said, he hoped the Government would give them some information on the subject.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should object to giving returns of this kind, referring to a class of persons in a respectable station of society, and yet having small means.

§ Lord Worsley
said, that the public ought to be satisfied that responsible trustees were appointed, and that those trustees were proper parties; and no Motion made to the effect of appointing others, unless every guarantee that the money was properly bestowed, was given to the public.

§ Mr. S. Crawford
said, he should protest on public grounds to any persons receiving public money whose names were concealed; and more especially that those who were in favour of the voluntary principle should receive State pay.

§ Sir W. Somerville
said, that the present discussion would not have arisen were it not for the late debate on the grant to Maynooth. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hindley) now wanted to make amends for his former supineness on the voluntary principle. Those persons were not the only Dissenters who received State pay. He recollected that in 1836 his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale had supported the Vote for the Presbyterians, and so did the hon. Member for Finsbury, who was not now in his place.

§ Mr. S. Crawford
said, he had no recollection of the statement made by his hon. Friend. In 1837, he distinctly recollected that he voted against the grant.