A Great Grievance. Laurence A.B. Whitley
the character of the Church’s courts in their conduct of business, public perception of, and therefore loyalty to, the established church altered. Schism became not only an option, but even desirable for some. By the end of the nineteenth century, there was, as a consequence of the patronage issue, scarcely a community where the parish church did not find itself in competition with at least one other Christian alternative, usually presbyterian. In short, patronage was the cause of some of the bitterest divisions within modern, Scottish society, and as a result, the Patronage Act of 1712 swiftly came to be demonised as one of Scottish history’s great deeds of mischief and betrayal. By the middle of the nineteenth century, no language was considered too melodramatic in its condemnation: “Whether the hand of the misguided Sovereign [Queen Anne] shook when affixing the sign manual, has not been recorded; but certainly at that moment, she put her hand to a deed by which her right to reign was virtually rescinded, the Revolution Settlement overturned, and the Treaty of Union repealed.”2
To read from the Disruption3 era, some of the indignant speeches, pamphlets and books concerning “This infamous Bill”4 it might be assumed that in its passing, all the Kirk’s enemies had indeed combined to violate “the deep–seated, ineradicable feelings of the people of Scotland”5 and that those feelings had, by contrast, been triumphantly expressed twenty-two years earlier, when patronage had been abolished. When it is considered that within the short time-span of 1688–1715, Scotland experienced four different sovereigns, the constitutional upheaval of the Revolution Settlement, a parliamentary union, an attempted invasion and a rebellion, then it can be seen that the removal and restoration of patronage took place against a complicated and unsettled religious and political backdrop.
In the following account of how, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, lay patronage in Scotland was abolished, restored and exercised, five traditionally-held beliefs will be critically re-examined. These are, first, the doctrine that patronage was abolished in 1690 simply because it was the will of the majority of Scottish churchmen; secondly, the much–repeated claim that the 1712 Act was an infringement of the Treaty of Union; thirdly, the tradition that patrons shied away from making presentations within the first twenty years after the Act; fourthly, the assumption that it was possible for a popular franchise to achieve acceptance within the established church, despite the admission of heritors (owners of heritable property) into the process of minister selection in 1690, and lastly, the belief that it is possible to speak of “the Church” making autonomous decisions at its General Assembly, or Assembly Commission, as if such deliberations were free from secular influence and political manipulation.
As will be gathered, the chief intention of what follows is to consider the period between 1690 and 1750, however, by way of introduction, and to demonstrate how lay patronage was historically as much embedded in Scottish life as elsewhere in Europe, the book will begin by giving a brief sketch of the medieval background. It will then follow an approximately chronological pattern, highlighting what might be considered landmarks in the way attitudes towards patronage were affected by the course of Scotland’s history.
In each chapter, various key questions will be addressed, as outlined below:
Chapter One
What were the origins of lay patronage?
What, if any, were its Scottish characteristics?
Why was it not abolished at the Reformation?
Chapter Two
How did the early seventeenth century strengthen the place of lay patronage in Scottish society?
Why did the National Covenant revolutionary movement of 1637–9 not sweep it away?
Chapter Three
What conclusions did the Westminster Assembly arrive at regarding presentations?
How did the 1649 abolition of patronage come about?
What system did the Kirk favour as a replacement for presentations?
Chapter Four
How important an issue was patronage in the Restoration period?
How did abolition come about in 1690?
Chapter Five
What was the thinking behind the provisions of the 1690 Act?
What were their defects?
What was meant by a “call”?
Chapter Six
What was the patrons’ reaction to the Act?
What contributed to controversy during the 1690–1712 period?
Chapter Seven
Was the 1712 Act a violation of the Treaty of Union?
How did the 1712 Act become law?
Chapter Eight
What were the effects of the Toleration Act?
Did patrons initially hold back from making presentations after the 1712 Act?
Why did the Kirk not resist presentations more strongly?
Chapter Nine
How was the position of the Kirk affected by the `15 Rising?
How and when did the issue of popular election grow to importance?
How was it possible to influence the decisions of the Kirk’s superior courts?
Chapter Ten
How did politics affect church settlements?
Did the legislation of 1719 provide a means of nullifying the issue of presentations?
What was it that inflamed so much anger in the 1720s?
Chapter Eleven
What led to the Secession of 1733?
Chapter Twelve
How did the supremely powerful Earl of Ilay and his chief agent, Lord Milton, appear to lose control in 1734–6?
How did they regain it?
How did they then lose office?
What was the English experience of lay patronage?
Chapter Thirteen
How did patronage affect vacancy-filling in disaffected areas like Angus?
Having assumed power, how did the vacancy-filling policy of Scotch Secretary Tweeddale differ from that of Ilay?
Chapter Fourteen
Why was the filling of Edinburgh churches the perennial cause of controversy?
Chapter Fifteen
After the fall of Tweeddale, did the Argathelian regime continue as before?
Was there a change in the Kirk’s response to patronage?
Conclusion
1. Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1874, c.82. The key factor in finalising this abolition was that (unlike before) patrons were to be bought out whether they wished to sell their right of presenting or not. Even then, all private patrons had to apply for the money (one year’s stipend) by 30 June 1875, or lose the right to it forever. Of the 626 private patrons, 242 made claims totalling £59,160. Those, like the crown, who held the other 373 rights of patronage, were not compensated. see Cormack, Alexander A., Teinds and agriculture, an historical survey. (Oxford: 1930), 187.
2. W. M. Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland, 7th. Edn. (Edinburgh: 1848), 601.