SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ALLOWANCES —REGIUM DONUM. (Hansard, 22 July 1850)

§ MR. LUSHINGTON
proposed, as an Amendment, that this vote should be reduced by the sum of 1,695l., being the amount of the grant to Protestant Dissenting Ministers; and in doing so, he would take the liberty of reminding the Committee that he brought forward a Motion similar to the present in the year 1848. He adopted that course in compliance with the urgent applications of most, if not all, of the principal dissenting bodies, who through the channel of petitions conveyed the remonstrances against this grant of 4,000 or 5,000 ministers, representing above 1,000,000 persons. Again, last year he made objection to the grant; but the Dissenters, disgusted at the manner in which their representations had been disregarded, abstained from petitioning on that occasion; and, mistaking their dissatisfaction for indifference, he (Dr. Lushington) did not press the case on the part of the Dissenters with the energy which they had not ceased to feel, and which they continued to entertain in all its original intense-ness. In fact, he declined to press the matter to a division. His friends around him, however, thought it expedient to take a division; and the majority of 32 in 1848 129 was reduced to 19. Now, he would assure the Committee that the repugnance of the great mass of Dissenters to this grant existed in undiminished strength, and they implored the House of Commons not to force upon their body a donation which, from its eleemosynary character, humiliates and degrades them, inflicting upon the whole Congregational Dissenters an annual insult, and violating their religious prepossessions. The circumstances of the Dissenters had greatly changed since this grant was first made. It was originally given by George I. from the Privy purse to the widows of poor Dissenting ministers, the amount being 500l. It was in time increased to the present sum of 1,695l.; and on the transfer of the hereditary revenues to the State, this sum became the subject of an annual vote from the Consolidated Fund. In those days the Dissenters were few and poor, and possessed no status in society. They were now numerous, wealthy, and influential; and they employed their wealth in the most noble manner. They had expended it in the erection of places of worship, colleges, and schools; in the dissemination of education, and in the support of their ministers and of missions. They had constructed fifteen years ago 265 chapels in the metropolis, and had covered the country with 8,000 places of worship. They declined State aid; and any infringement on this principle was so painful and humiliating to them, that one of their leading Committees had designated the grant of the Regium Donum as affixing on them "the broad seal of infamy." It was contrary to their principles to make any stipulation for a direct substitute for this grant, which they pronounced it tyranny to force upon them in violation of their religious scruples, and which is secretly distributed among individuals whom they cannot recognise as associates. The dole is cast to those persons in secret as mendicants, and in such miserable proportions as to reduce the recipients to the level of workhouse paupers. A return was furnished to the House in 1847, which showed that in three years the sum of 5,085l. was distributed among 1,070 ministers, or so-called ministers, making an average of about 22s. per head. What would the Church of England Hierarchy say if the Dissenters were empowered to force upon 300 clergymen annually a sum of 22s. each? What right had the noble Lord to incumber the Dissenters with his offensive 130 charity? Why cast a stigma on the whole body by giving State aid to a few mendicants who are ashamed to acknowledge the obligation, and their departure from the principles of their brethren? Petitions had been presented against the grant, hut none in favour, because the recipients blush to avow their deviation from the general refusal to receive State assistance. The hon. Gentleman said he was satisfied that the Dissenters would make up the sum if the grant were withdrawn, though they declined any express stipulation. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had engaged fin' the money being forthcoming. The time was now arrived for the cessation of this annual offence to a most worthy portion of the community, and he accordingly begged leave to move the Amendment which was in the Chairman's hands.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding' 4,623l. be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1851, Miscellaneous Allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c., for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament.

§ MR. KERSHAW
seconded the Amendment. He was very anxious that this grant should be cut off. It was so singular in its character, and was so opposed to the feelings of Dissenters both in England and Scotland, that he had hoped that the Government would consent to withdraw it. The Dissenters regarded it as at once inconsistent with their principles, and derogatory to their character. The boards connected with the several denominations had expressed their disapprobation of it. It was distributed amongst the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Baptists, and neither of these bodies was in a position to require such assistance. [Loud cries of "Divide!" "Oh, oh!"] He had the honour to represent a much larger constituency than many hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh!" and therefore considered that he had a light to address the Committee.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that however much the Gentleman who moved the Amendment represented the opinion of certain sects of the Dissenters, the evidence of Dr. Rees was opposed to their views, inasmuch as Dr. Rees affirmed that the distribution of the Regiuin Donum was attended with great satisfaction, and that the withhold- 131 ing of it would give serious ground of offence to the Dissenters.

§ MR. BRIGHT
thought that, though the question had been discussed on several occasions, the House was not aware of the nature of the grant. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to mislead the Committee with regard to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the evidence of Dr. Rees to prove that it gave great satisfaction. Now, it was probable that not a single congregation was aware of the fact that its minister was a recipient of the fund, All congregations repudiated the grant; and if it were known by any that its minister was a recipient, it would become a question between the minister and the congregation, and a stop would be put to it. It was, in fact, a sort of secret service money; as, at the Treasury, nothing was known of the recipients. At the Treasury it was handed to three individuals of average respectability to distribute; but no names were returned as those of the recipients, and consequently nothing was known of the necessities of those for whom that House voted money. His great objection to the grant was this—he thought it calculated to cause duplicity amongst the Dissenting clergymen, which was most dangerous to their characters as ministers. The amount was 5l., and there could be no doubt but that the Dissenting congregations, who provided salaries varying from 5l. to 100l a year for their ministers, could find the other 5l. if they thought it necessary, or that their ministers were starving. But it was asked, were they ready to provide a substitute? How could they provide a substitute when they did not know who received the money? They knew nothing about it, and, therefore, they were totally powerless to get rid of this result. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had now an opportunity to be economical, and in a way which would do no harm to anybody. They could get rid of near 1,700l. a year with the consent of the Member for Westminster and the hon. Member for Stockport, himself a leading member of the Dissenting body. He (Mr. Bright) could also give his opinion, having been in intimate communication with the Dissenters in various parts of the kingdom, while the congregational unions, in fact, the various representatives of the Dissenters, were all in favour of the abolition of the grant. If all the Dissenters in the country could appear at the bar, he did 132 not think they could have more conclusive testimony on the subject. He, therefore, asked the noble Lord not to press this grant at a time like this, when economy was a public object, and all the parties concerned were anxious to get rid of the money. There was nobody but Dr. Rees who asked them to continue it; and, therefore, on behalf of the country, and the House, he begged the noble Lord to consent that the vote should be given up, and that, if not, the House should express an opinion to which the noble Lord and his Colleagues must bow.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
did not believe the House could refuse this vote without, as was represented, doing injury to anybody, because it must be recollected that at least 300 Dissenting ministers received assistance in very small sums from the grant; and it was stated by those who distributed the money, that it was given to persons who, from their pecuniary circumstances, were in great need of such assistance. It had been said, now and on former occasions, that it was entirely against the principles of Dissenters to receive this money; but if that were the case, it seemed very extraordinary that from 1723 to 1850 this grant had been made every year. It appeared to him that this fact contradicted the assumption of hon. Gentlemen, and that it could not be contrary to the principles of Dissenters to receive such assistance. He could, however, very well understand that those who did not wish to see any ministers of religion receiving money from the public funds or from the State might feel that this grant made against their argument, and might, therefore, wish that it should be discontinued; but he could not consent, for the sake of giving some additional force to that argument, to deprive 300 Protestant Dissenting ministers of the sums they had hitherto been receiving. It appeared to him that this was a matter of charity, and as a matter of charity only he would ask the Committee to assent to the vote. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that this was a species of secret service money. He (Lord J. Russell) would admit that if this were a sum for which the Dissenting ministers applied directly to the Treasury, and the Treasury chose the persons to whom the grant should he made, it might have the appearance of giving the Treasury some influence over those who received it. But the parties who distributed the grant were Dr. Rees and eight other ministers, who re- 133 presented the Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist denominations; and the Treasury exercised no sort of supervision over the persons who disposed of the money. The distribution of the grant was left entirely to those nine ministers of the three denominations; and he could not conceive that those respectable gentlemen would consent to distribute to others money which they knew it was contrary to their principles to receive.

§ MR. WYLD
regretted that the noble Lord should have treated this grant as a matter of charity towards Dissenters, he could assure the noble Lord that the Dissenters of England required charity neither from that House nor from any other body. He would remind the Committee that the most numerous body of Dissenters, the Wesleyans, were not participants in this grant.

§ MR. BRIGHT
wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would lay on the table the names of the recipients of this grant; or whether he would consent not to press the vote this year, and it would then be seen whether the 300 ministers who were said to participate in the grant would petition for its renewal?

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
could not comply with the hon. Gentleman's request. If be did so the names of the recipients would he held up to odium all over the kingdom.

§ MR. REYNOLDS
thought the noble Lord ought to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Member for Manchester. He was surprised that the Government should force such a grant upon people who were unwilling to receive it, especially as they proposed to reduce by a considerable amount the grants to the charitable hospitals of Dublin. As the representative of those who were anxious to support the Dublin hospitals, he could only say that he would willingly accept the 1,700l. which it appeared from the statements of the hon. Member for Manchester and other hon. Gentlemen the Dissenters were so unwilling to receive.