Talk:Committee for Plundered Ministers

Biassed
I'm not going to claim that the committee never did any wrong. I'm sure it was an instrument of ideological rule, as described. But the positive side is barely mentioned here. I can think of many local cases where the committee cleared out obvious abuses, particularly in the large collegiate churches wuith their absentee chapters, and instituted a preaching and pastoral ministry. Wolverhampton is a very good example: Laud had actively supported the obnoxious Wren brothers and their cronies, but the committee replaced the whole chapter with a well-funded minister and assistant, who actuually lived in the town - unlike any of the existing clergy. Sjwells53 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All counties or none?
There are a lot of misleading comments in this article as it stands, particularly in relationship to the so-called Committee for Scandalous Ministers, which went through various forms from the inception of the Grand Committee for Religion in 1640. These needs quite a bit of work before we can provide a suitable understanding of how these evolved committees meshed with this new committee established in 1642/3.

Also when I added the members appointed in December 1642, I listed all the counties of those involved, missing out Windsor. I think it would be useful list the counties of each MP - of course some are county MPs -, so I suggest we should do so.

There are also problems conflating this committee with the evolution of the various committees for scandalous ministers. By concentrating on actual facts readers will be able to start interpreting the significance of these facts - if they can maintain sufficient resources, of which interest is a significant example. It would be interesting, for example to see how many of the individuals involved in these court cases already have a Wikipedia page, such as Samuel Crossman. Or how many might warrant such a page? Leutha (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)