pay for their keep and entertainment whilst here; yet such was the fact. And not only

She had not shown it with re

At

Member for Montrose, to cut down the Army and Navy, for which he (Lord Dudley Stuart) had voted, and not by withholding that, but we had also to pay for their exa pittance from brave patriots in distress, penses in coming and going from this counthat economy was really to be promoted. try. More than that-considerable exDeprive these unfortunate refugees of their penses were incurred in moving about royal allowance. Would that really relieve the personages on board our ships from one distress of our own people! Would it give part of the world to another. If hon. Genhalf a glass of beer to any working man; tlemen would examine the civil contingena teaspoonful of tea, or a pinch of snuff, to cies, they would find large sums expended any poor woman? It would not; but what for conveying the King of Bavaria when it would do, would be to increase the bur- on a visit to the King of Greece, and the dens of the ratepayers in those localities King of Greece on a visit to the King of which the refugees inhabited; for if they Bavaria, and other potentates in the same were deprived of their allowances, they way. Yet those who were so loud for would not be suffered to starve. They economy, had agreed to these things withwould not be sent out of the country under out complaint. Many persons who did not the Alien Act, which was not intended for take the trouble to inquire into facts, any such purpose, and could not be so ap- imagined that England was the most geplied, even if Government were inhuman nerous, as well as the richest country in enough, which he was sure no Government the world. would be, to wish so to use it, and the parishes would by law be forced to support these persons in the shape of casual poor. But was this grant resisted on the ground of principle, and were they determined not to spend one farthing more than was absolutely necessary for the expenses of the State? Then let them carry out their principle, and do away with the paraphernalia of a Court, with its heralds and trumpeters, a master of buckhounds, and array of tinselled courtiers. He thought it tended much more to the dignity of the Sovereign and people of this country to maintain a grant for the relief of brave patriots in distress, than to keep the splendour and empty pageant of a Court such as he had referred to. He was not one of those who cavilled at these things, or who desired to introduce into this country republican simplicity (although he thought there were some expenses which might very well be curtailed)-but he said, let those who did desire it, not to begin by withholding the pittance of the distressed. Were those who complained of this grant aware of the sums spent yearly on foreigners in no distress, on sovereigns and princes who chose to pay a visit to this country? In the course of the last few years England had been visited by almost every crowned head and royal prince in Europe. The Emperor of Russia, King of Prussia, King of the French, King of Belgium, King of Holland, and many other personages, had all honoured us with their visits. But the people who were fond of staring and gaping at these crowned heads, would perhaps not be so well pleased if they knew that they had to

gard to the Poles; there was not a country
on the Continent enjoying a constitutional
government at the time of the Polish re-
volution that had not granted large sums
for the relief of the Poles. France, Bel-
gium, Switzerland, had all done so.
the time when England originally granted
10,000l. to the Poles in England, the
French Chambers voted no less a sum than
2,500,000 francs (or 100,000l.) for the
Poles; and though the numbers of the
Poles had since, from natural causes, de-
creased there as well as here, it appeared
from a return he had procured from Paris,
that a large sum had been annually voted
by the French, and that they had voted
this year about 1,200,000 francs. He did
not say that we were bound to follow the
example of France, nor did he deny that
the Poles had stronger claims upon the
French than upon this country; but he
mentioned these things in order to show
that in making this grant of some 8,0007.,
we were not committing an act of lavish
and unheard-of generosity. What, too,
had been the practice of this country?
We had assisted the refugees of almost
every country when they fled in dis-
tress to our shores. French, Corsican,
Dutch, Spaniards, had all received our
bounty; and if we turned to the report
of the Committee on Miscellaneous Esti-
mates, to which Gentlemen were fond of
referring, we should find that in the begin-
ning of this century, intead of 8,000l. or
10,000l., the sum voted for the relief of
refugees amounted to the almost incredible
sum of 260,000l.; and in subsequent
years 154,000l., 160,000l., &c., were the

years, and who were in a state of health | in and within twelve miles of London, apwhich precluded them from gaining their pointed to protect their civil rights; the own subsistence.

On this statement the opposition to the vote was withdrawn, and it was agreed to.

SUPPLY-THE REGIUM DONUM.

On the question that a sum not exceed ing 6,6697. be granted for miscellaneous allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List,

sources

Board of Congregational Ministers, resid-
ing in and about the cities of London and
Westminster; the general body of Protes-
tant Dissenting ministers of the three de-
nominations, residing in the same locality;
from the Baptist Board, representing above
a thousand churches; and other numerous
and influential bodies.
These petitions
convey the remonstrances of between 4,000
and 5,000 ministers and their congrega-
tions, far exceeding 1,000,000 of persons.
So great, indeed, is their repugnauce to
this oppressive act of State benevolence,
that many of these Dissenters have ex-
pressed their willingness, if the Govern-
ment will abandon the grant, to make up
the amount by voluntary contribution. All
that the immense majority of the Dissen-
ters ask, is to be relieved from the burden
and disgrace of receiving the eleemosynary
benefactions of the State, either for chari-
table or religious purposes, in the person
of some of their ministers, simply because
they are needy. No doubt, at first sight,
these assertions appear utterly at variance
with the evidence produced before the
Committee on these estimates. But who
was the witness on whose sole testimony
the Committee and the Government have
formed their resolution to recommend the
continuance of this grant to its present
number of recipients? Why, Dr. Rees,
the treasurer of the fund, who has the
principal patronage of its distribution! He
has affirmed that the acceptance of the
grant is agreeable to the generality of the
"denominations." Now, though I believe
Dr. Rees to be a most respectable gentle-
man, yet I deny his affirmations on the
part of the vast majority of the Dissenters;
and pronounce his evidence to be rash,
fallacious, and unfounded in fact.
Committee may judge from the following
passages. Dr. Rees is asked :—

MR. LUSHINGTON rose to object to the first item in the vote-1,6951. for Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England. He said I should not have troubled the Committee with the Motion of which I have given notice, had I not been impelled to adopt that course by the urgent representations of several numerous and influential bodies of Dissenters, who feel themselves deeply aggrieved and humiliated by the annual imposition of this grant. Before, however, proceeding further, I will take the liberty of reminding the Committee of the nature and object of this grant. This grant, usually called the Regium Donum, was originally bestowed by George I. on certain poor Dissenting ministers, or their widows, as a matter of charity, out of the revenues of the Crown; and when those rewere transferred to the State, under the existing arrangement of the Civil List, the Regium Donum became a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and has, from that time, been provided for by an annual vote in the miscellaneous estimates. The amount of the grant is 1,695l., payable through the hands of nine trustees, of whom the treasurer is one, in equal proportions, to poor ministers of the three denominations of Dissenters Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist. By the latest accounts, the recipients were about 300 in number, the sum awarded to each averaging 51. Now, the great bulk of these Dissenters, especially the Independents and Baptists, object to this grant, as subversive of the voluntary principle, which they reverence, as degrading to their character for consistency, and offensive to their views of moral and religious obligation. These objections have frequently been embodied in petitions to this House, renouncing the grant as uncalledfor, impolitic, and unjust; and petitions to the above effect have been presented this Session from the Committee of Deputies of the several congregations of Protestant "7540. Is that lately?-It has been of late Dissenters of the three denominations-years; there has been no discussion very lately Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, to occasion such communications."

"

The

7538. Chairman: Generally speaking, I understand from your evidence you consider that the withholding of it would be considered a very this distribution gives satisfaction?-I am sure great calamity. I have reason to know that from very painful representations which are continually coming into my hands.

"7539. From your experience, you conceive

the applications are so numerous as to show there

is no indisposition on the part of the Dissenting clergy to receive it ?-Quite so; I have received repeated applications on the subject, expressive of the fears of the parties that it might be with

drawn.

The petitions to which I have referred these hesitating recipients, whose poverty, contradict these preposterous assertions not their will, incites them to accept it, point blank; and in a paper widely circu- especially too, when the grant can, in all lated by the Dissenters, which I hold in probability, as intimated in the paper my hand, it is notorious that the great which I have quoted, be provided for by bodies of Dissenters of the three denomi- annual association. For all these reasons nations protested eleven times between the I now move that this vote for the payment years 1837 and 1847 in public and solemn of the Regium Donum be disallowed. Sir, assemblage, against this degrading benevo- this is not a party question. It is not a lence. Yet Dr. Rees, according to his dispute between Whig and Tory. It is evidence, unscrupulously declares there not a controversy between Churchmen and has been no discussion very lately regard- Nonconformists. The simple case is, wheing the indisposition on the part of the ther Parliament will continue to brand the Dissenting clergy to receive the grant. universal body of Dissenters of the three But it remains to be explained why the denominations with the mark and stigma Committee took only one witness noto- of mendicancy, by inducing a small numriously and personally interested in the ber of their ministers to palter with their continuance of the grant, and did not consciences by annually accepting this summon a single witness likely to belie miserable dole? The hon. Gentleman his testimony, and prove that to the bulk concluded by moving, that the charge of of the Congregational Dissenters this grant 1,6951. for Protestant Dissenting minisis hateful and obnoxious. And yet it is ters in England be struck out, and the vote unscrupulously averred that it gives great reduced to 4,9741. satisfaction, not to the recipients alone, nor to their congregations only, but to the denominations to which they belong. Now, who are the men on whom this contumely is affixed, whose honour and respectability are tainted by this annual infliction? Why, men who have built 4,681 places of worship in England and Wales, the ministers of which they maintain by voluntary stipends--who possess and support fifteen theological colleges-who contribute most generously to the encouragement of missions and to the diffusion of educationwho are among the foremost in every good work-who are most rarely, even the humblest among them, presented before the judgment seat as criminals-who have the privilege of approaching Royalty with their addresses-and to whose ancestors we are mainly indebted for that full measure of liberty which it is our happiness to enjoy. It is on behalf of these most meritorious members of the community that I implore Her Majesty's Government and the Committee to relinquish this oppressive practice of annually tempting certain needy though respectable persons to accept a paltry donative, to the debasement of their social condition, by the virtual infraction of their implied engagements, by the compromise of their principles, and at the sacrifice of their conscientious convictions. So much in humble and imperfect advocacy of the wishes of the Dissenters. But I very much question the right of Her Majesty's Ministers to throw away even this small sum of the public money on

COLONEL THOMPSON said, this question stood in an unparalleled position. Here was a gift of money protested against as an oppressive act of benevolence. There were some men, and some women, who would take any thing they could get; but the majority protested against taking their practice for the rule. And the same persons who protested against the oppressive act of benevolence in the shape of Regium Donum, were found protesting against an oppressive act of benevolence in the shape of church-rates. What then so simple, as to truck one act against the other, and let the Dissenters alone altogether? He knew there were those who denied that church-rates were any loss to Dissenters, on the ground that their estates were bought and sold for a lower price in consequence. He thought this was the very reason why they were damaged; and he only wished all the landed estates in the country, collegiate and ecclesiastical included, were subjected to a tax of 5 or of 1 per cent, for long enough, to try what the owners would say to this argument.

LORD J. RUSSELL would remind the Committee that this was a grant to a number of Protestant Dissenting ministers, and that though hon. Members came down and said that they thought it degrading, and were very reluctant to receive it, and had rather not receive it, those hon. Members were not themselves the persons who received it; they gave it up on behalf of others, and apparently without authority. This was a sum which had been granted

since the reign of George I., as a matter brought forward by itself; but a paltry of charity to poor Dissenting ministers; grant of this kind was not the proper ocand, until a few years ago, he believed casion for raising it. this assistance was gratefully received by MR. W. J. FOX apprehended that the the whole body. Dr. Rees was examined only reason why the grant had not ceased before the Committee which had been sit-in consequence of no application being ting, and was asked—

"Are these sums much sought for?"

Very much; we have a great many more applications than we are able to meet."

made to the Treasury for it, was that the
distribution of it was not in the least under
the control of the body, some of whose
ministers received it. One gentleman,
Dr. Rees, was selected by the Treasury,
and he nominated others, who formed with
him a board utterly irresponsible to any
body, clerical or lay, connected with the
Dissenting interest; they had no auditors
but themselves; they were men of unques-
tionable character, but they were in a
minority in their communities. Each of
the three denominations concerned had
offered to contribute the money its minis-
ters received from the grant; but the an-
swer of the trustees had been, "If you
will raise a sum, the interest of which will
pay this grant permanently, we will then
consent to cease to apply to the Treasury
for it." That had been thought unfair
and unreasonable.
offered again and again to raise the
amount. [Lord J. RUSSELL: For one
year you mean.] It would be raised an-
nually; they were never backward in their

The Dissenters had

That did not look like that extreme reluctance, or even hesitation, with which this grant had been said to be taken. If the parties receiving this sum did not wish to receive it if their congregations made it up by their contributions, the Treasury would find that it was not required; but instead of that, here were applicants urgently asking for it. It was divided among various ministers of the three denominations, and Dr. Rees stated that there had been in the course of three years 166 grants to Presbyterian ministers, 443 to Independent, and 461 to Baptist; so that all the three denominations had taken the grant, the shares varying because their numbers varied. The reason why this opposition was made, was explained in a subsequent part of Dr. Rees's evidence. Very respectable, and indeed eminent men among the Dissenters undertook the distribution of the grant-benevolent subscriptions. Dr. Rees, Dr. Pye Smith, Mr. Clayton; MR. KERSHAW said, that the noble three men could not be named more entitled to respect for their learning and acquirements, and for their character for piety and intelligence; and they enter tained no such objection to this grant. But other gentlemen, for whom he (Lord J. Russell) had a very great respect likewise, had set up what they called an AntiState Church Association, their object being that the State should not make or authorise any grants or endowments by which religion might be at all supported; and a gentleman whom he very much respected, Dr. Cox, seceded from the body who distributed this grant, on this ground, thinking it inconsistent with the assertion of the general principle, that all church establishments should be destroyed, and no public money granted for the support of religion. That seemed to him a very insufficient ground for refusing what, as a matter of charity, appeared to be very acceptable to those who received it; and, indeed, he thought it was not the proper way of raising so great a question. If urch establishments were objected to, or n church rates, the question could be They objected to the grant on principle, as

He held

Lord was quite wrong in supposing that
the opposition to this grant originated with
the Anti-State Church Association; for,
on the contrary the Regium Donum had
been repeatedly protested against long be-
fore that body was in existence.
in his hand a copy of a resolution, adopted
in January, 1834, by the united Com-
mittee of the three denominations, in which
the reception of this grant was declared to
be inconsistent with the principles of Pro-
testant Dissent. It was also stated, in a
paper which had been widely circulated by
Dissenters, that—

"On this subject, Dissenters of every name have expressed their unanimous opinion. The Ministers of the three denominations, conjointly Unions, the Dissenting deputies of the three deand separately; the Congregational and Baptist nominations, the recent Conferences-to say nothing of county associations, and various local gatherings of Dissenting piety and intelligenceall grants of public money in support of religion, have, without one exception, joined to denounce and this grant in particular. On these occasions, no hand has ever yet been stretched out to arrest the broad seal of infamy which all have agreed that it deserves."