The Veto Act

IN this year when the centenary of the Disruption is to be commemorated this Act which had such an important place in the controversy which ended in that notable event deserves some notice. The Moderates who had long been in the ascendancy in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland under their able leaders, Principals Robertson and George Hill, were gradually but surely losing ground. Under the leadership of such notable men as Dr. John Erskine, Sir Henry Wellwood Moncrieff, Bart., Dr. Thomson and Dr. Chalmers the Evangelical party were gaining ground. Dr. McCrie, though an outsider was also a tower of strength to the Evangelicals. Patronage which was restored in 1712 proved to be an arsenal of Scotland’s ecclesiastical woes. The Evangelical Party maintained that it was the right of the people to elect their ministers, a privilege which was denied them under the 1712 Act. Evangelicals were not quite united to begin with as to what course should be adopted. Dr. Chalmers who was soon to be acknowledged as the leader of the Evangelicals suggested a course that would minimise the evils of patronage rather than remove patronage at one legislative sweep. The out-and-out anti-patronists at length agreed to adopt this course. The two sections thus united decided to bring before the Assembly what is known as the Veto Act. Dr. Chalmers brought forward the measure in the form of a Declaratory Law. The motion was seconded by Lord Moncrieff. An amendment was moved by Dr. Cook, now leader of the Moderates. This amendment was carried by a narrow majority of 12—the vote being 149 against 137. Next year (1834) the rejected measure was again brought before the Assembly. In the absence of Dr. Chalmers it was introduced by Lord Moncrieff. Dr. Mearns moved an amendment similar to that moved by Dr. Cook in 1833 or to state it more correctly the report of the Committee which by the passing of that amendment had been formed. The Evangelicals carried the day, the voting being 184 to 138 a majority of 36 for them. It was then decided to send it

down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act while in the meantime it was passed as an interim Act. The Assembly of 1835 passed the measure as a standing law of the Church. As the Act was, by and bye, to face the Judges of the Court of Session and be condemned by them as ultra vires it may be stated at this stage that the law officers of the Crown had expressed their opinion that it was competent for the Assembly to pass such a law.

It is not necessary in an article like this to quote the Act at length. Let it suffice to say that the Act provided where a majority of the male heads of families, resident in the parish, being members of the congregation, and at least two years in communion with the Church, had the right, unless corrupt and malicious purposes could be proved, to set aside the presentee to the charge made by the heritor. It will be seen that the Act did not strike at the real root of the evil of patronage. Besides, it was defective in that it gave the right of veto only to male heads of families. Women* and unmarried male members were denied the right of veto. Yet this Act was to be the indirect cause of one of the most shattering upheavals that the Church of Scotland ever experienced. How this came about may now be briefly told. In 1834 the Earl of Kinnoul had presented Mr. Robert Young to the living of Auchterarder parish. When the call was moderated in only two communicants and the Earl’s factor, who was not a communicant, voted for him while 287 male heads of families who were communicants declared they would have none of him. The Presbytery, refused to take him on trials. Lord Kinnoul with Mr. Young took the case to the Court of Session. Eight of the Judges declared against the legality of the Veto Act and five for it, viz. Lord Glenlee, Jeffrey, Moncrieff, Cockburn, and Fullerton. The Judgment of the Court of Session was appealed to the House of Lords and affirmed by them. When the matter came before the Assembly in 1838 it declared by a majority that it would offer no objection to Mr. Young enjoying the living of Auchterarder but it asserted the civil courts had no right to compel the Church to ordain a minister as this was a purely spiritual function outwith the sphere of the civil courts. Lord Kinnoul and Mr. Young went back to the Court of Session and got a decree requiring the Presbytery of Auchterarder to take Mr. Young on trials and if found qualified ordain him, and in case of failing to do so they were to pay £10,000 to Mr. Young. The House of Lords again affirmed this decision. Another case that of Marnoch (Banffshire) in the Presbytery of Strathbogie now came to the front. Mr. John Edwards, who had been schoolmaster of Marnoch, and who was well-known to the people was presented to the parish. One parishioner, Mr. Peter Taylor, the innkeeper, was the only person who signed the call. 261 male heads of families signed the veto against Edwards. The majority of the ministers of Strathbogie Presbytery were Moderates. They naturally had no objection to the Court of Session’s decision stated above. When Mr. Edwards obtained an order from the Court of Session he had no difficulty

* Female Communicants at this date had no voice in the election of office-bearers. After the Disruption the privilege of voting for the election of office-bearers was granted in the face of strong opposition from Dr. Gibson (Glasgow), etc. The matter also caused considerable controversy in the Secession Churches. See Fleming’s The Church in Scotland (1843-74), p. 44; Small’s History of Congregations in the U. P. Church, Vol. I. p. 711; McCrie’s Miscellaneous Writings, p. 669.

in getting the majority of the Presbytery to take him on “trials” for his ordination. The Church now stepped in and suspended the 7 Moderate ministers and thus deprived them of power to proceed with the ordination. The battle was soon on in dead earnest between the Church and the Law Courts. The majority of the Presbytery paid no attention to the Church’s suspension and on 21st January, 1741, they met, in the Church for Mr. Edward’s ordination and induction. When the proceedings were about to begin a solemn protest was read on behalf of the parishioners against the right of the suspended ministers to call themselves the Presbytery of Strathbogie. When this was done all the parishioners rose and left the Church. The suspended ministers acting according to the light they had were determined to ride rough shod over the convictions of the parishioners. As they were again on the point of proceeding a tremendous din was set up by what John Knox would have called the “rascal multitude” who evidently had gathered in the expectation of some high excitement. The noise was unbearable and the services of Mr. Stronach of Ardmeallie, one of the protesters and a Justice of peace, was enlisted by the ministers. He denied that a single parishioner of Marnoch was present—they had all left the building. He then counselled the people in the church to let the ministers proceed with their business. When the searching question put to ministers at their ordination was addressed to Mr. Edwards:—”Are not zeal for the honour of God, love to Christ, and desire of saving souls your great motives and chief inducements to enter into the office of the holy ministry, and not worldly motives and inducements?”—Mr. Edwards replied:—”Yes.” One wonders what his feelings were as he listened to the solemn question and what were the feelings of the Moderator were when he put it to him. Mr. Edwards then knelt, according to the recognized Presbyterian form, and with the hands of the Presbytery resting on his head he was set apart in a solemn manner to be minister of the parish of Marnoch. Mr. Peter Taylor the only person who signed his call had thus a minister all to himself.* When the General Assembly met it deposed the seven ministers. This action called forth the sympathy of the Moderates and those who sympathised with them. It was said that it was too heavy a sentence to depose men who were acting in obedience with the decisions of the highest law courts in the land. On the other hand the proceedings at Marnoch made a great impression on the country. The news spread like wild fire through the parishes. What was enacted at Marnoch was much more easily understood by the common people than the legal phraseology of the documents issued by the law courts. The people were thus being prepared more and more for the momentous decision of their Evangelical leaders of the great event that issued in the Disruption but before we come to 1843 there are still a few points to be discussed in connection with the Veto Act but these will have to be held over for a later issue. It should not be forgotten that the Chapel Act also played an important part in the “Ten Years’ Conflict” but we are confining our attention to the Veto Act in this article.

* Dr. Rankin in his Church of Scotland (p. 267), who tries to make the best of one or two of the disputed settlements has nothing to say in justification of the ordination at Marnoch.

(To be continued).