| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act to restore the Patrons to their ancient Rights of presenting Ministers to the Churches vacant in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland. |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Territorial extent | Great Britain |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 22 May 1712 |
| Commencement | 1 May 1712[c] |
| Repealed | 1 January 1875 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | Promissory Oaths Act 1871 |
| Repealed by | Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1874 |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
TheChurch Patronage (Scotland) Act 1711 (10 Ann. c. 21)[a] orPatronage Act or theVeto Act is anact of theParliament of Great Britain. Thelong title of the act isAn Act to restore the Patrons to their ancient Rights of presenting Ministers to the Churches vacant in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland.[1] Its purpose was to allow the noble and otherPatrons inScotland to gain control over theChurch of Scotlandparish churches again, having lost that custom in theGlorious Revolution.
TheRoman Catholic Church in Scotland received large endowments of land, from the Monarch or landowners, to support Parishes, Abbeys, etc, often with the condition that the donor and his heirs had the right to nominate a suitable cleric or clerics to the enjoy the proceeds of the endowment. In the absence of a specific Patron, the Pope was regarded as the universal Patron. His patronage was exercised through local bishops.[2]
The Church in Scotland wasReformed under the guidance ofJohn Knox and other Reformers. The king took over the lands ofabbeys and bishoprics, turning many into lordships for his supporters, or giving some of them to universities or town councils. The lands associated with supporting parish clergy – or ministers, as they were now called – were generally undisturbed. The king took over the role of default patron, in the absence of any specific patron. TheFirst Book of Discipline (1560) and theSecond Book of Discipline (1578) laid down the rules for the reformedChurch of Scotland. Both stipulated thatministers should be chosen by congregations. The First Book never became civil law, and neither did the part of the Second Book relating topatronage, as the right of the heirs of original donors to nominate suitable clerics to a parish was called.
However, by an act of theParliament of Scotland (1567) presentation by laic (lay) patronages was expressly preserved, the patron being bound to present a qualified person within six months of vacancy occurring. By the same act, an appeal against the presented candidate by the congregation could only be on the basis of the qualifications of the presentee.
By the "Golden Act" of 1592, which establishedPresbyterianism as the only legal form of Church government in Scotland, Presbyteries were "bound and astricted to receive and admit whatsoever qualified minister is presented be (sic) his Majesty or laic patron". If a congregation refused to accept a suitable nominee, the Patron was entitled to enjoy the fruits of the original bequest - stipend, lands, house, etc.[3]
By the beginning of the 17th century, patronage was well established in custom and law. A patron could be the king, one of the universities, a town or burgh council or a landowner, such as theDuke of Argyle (who had nine patronages).[4]
TheGolden Act was repealed as regards Church government byCharles I, but lay Patronage was not repealed. In 1649, just before the execution ofCharles I, theParliament of Scotland passed an Act abolishing Patronage,[5] but it never receivedroyal assent and Scotland was soon overrun by the English. Despite further changes to Church government, (even despite Scotland having been incorporated into, thePuritanCommonwealth of England), Patronage was not formally repealed. Nor was it during theRestoration and the reigns ofCharles II andJames VII.
Following the Dutch invasion of England by the PresbyterianWilliam of Orange, the so-calledGlorious Revolution definitively restored Presbyterianism as the only legal form of Church government in Scotland. A 1690 Act (again, by theParliament of Scotland) did not abolish patronage, but vested this power instead in theheritors andelders of each parish, who could propose a candidate to the whole congregation, to be either approved or disapproved by them. If they disapproved, they needed to give their reasons. Disputes were to be resolved by thepresbytery.[6] Presbyteries were to pay compensation, typically a year's stipend, to the owner of the abolished patronage, who was to provide a formal, written renunciation in return.
TheTreaty of Union, signed between Scotland and England in 1706, preserved and guaranteed the separate legal system in Scotland. By separateActs of Union in theParliament of Scotland and theParliament of England, whilst the English Parliament abolished itself the Scottish Parliament was prorogued, and set up a singleParliament of Great Britain. A further act guaranteed the Presbyterian status of theChurch of Scotland. It was to be important to future disputes on patronage that the Church of Scotland as a legal corporation had been established by Act of Parliament. Disputes hung upon the differences between the civil benefices (depending upon civil law) and the spiritual benefices (determined by Church law) of the appointment of a Minister.
The treaty and the acts came into force in 1707.
Patronage was a much less disputed issue in theAnglican Church, and the dispossessed Scottish lay patrons were able to persuade the united, and mainlyAnglican,Parliament of Great Britain that they had unjustly lost a purely civil right. Their case may have been strengthened by the fact that Article 20 of theTreaty of Union had preserved all heritable rights and jurisdictions of pre-Union Scotland. It also helped that the British Government distrusted popular participation in matters of importance, as the selection of parish ministers certainly was. Consequently, the Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1711 was passed, restoring to their original owners the right to present suitably qualified candidates to Presbyteries in the event of a vacancy. Only those Patron's who had renounced their claim in writing in return for compensation were excluded from this, of which there were only three in 1711, Cadder, Old and New Monklands.[7] The effect was the restoration of the situation as it was in 1592. Patrons were required to swear allegiance to theHanoverian kings, and abjure the claims of theStuart Pretenders; a patron who refused was to appoint commissioners to exercise the patronage on his behalf.[8] Patrons did not need to be members of theChurch of Scotland.
The act came into force on 1 May 1712.
The Church of Scotland mainly acquiesced in this restoration, though it felt aggrieved and the General Assembly protested to Parliament almost every year that it was contrary to theTreaty of Union.[9] The congregation of a Parish could only legally object to a presentee on the grounds of his suitability, so theGeneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland laid down increasingly stringent educational, moral and practical qualifications for candidates for the ministry. Moreover, few patrons dared to suggest scandalously unqualified candidates.
Appointments were, however, regularly contested through the church courts -Kirk Session,Presbytery andSynod finally to be decided at theGeneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland. As most objections were on the acceptability of the candidate, rather than his suitability, the Assembly usually decided in favour of the Patron, particularly as he could seek civil damages in theCourt of Session otherwise.
The civil courts were involved because disputes related to the stipends and property of Parishes, to ownership of the property of the right to Patronage, who had the right to exercise it and whether time limits had been breached.
Eventually, as most ministers owed their appointment to a patron, they were unwilling to challenge the system. Many were also wary of more democratic involvement in Church governance. The status of the Church itself had been guaranteed by Act of Parliament, so it tended towards supporting legal procedures, though it protested against them. Many patrons were wary of provoking disputes, so tried to work with the heritors and elders of their parishes to present candidates who met with General Assembly criteria in terms of education, character and practical ability. This group of ministers, heritors, elders and patrons – calledModerates - formed the dominant group in the Church of Scotland during the 18th century.
Other Ministers, Heritors and Elders objected to Patronage on principle, as compromising the independence of the Church and the right of congregations freely to call their own Ministers. They viewed the whole of the 17th century as a struggle to achieve this, most notably during theCovenanter disturbances, culminating in the victory of theGlorious Revolution. Later, this Party of principled opposition was called theEvangelicals. It became dominant in the 19th century. Moreover, the buying and selling of church offices -Simony - was against Church law. When a Patron tried to sell his right (or, more normally, when this was advertised as part of the sale of an estate), the cry of Simony was raised. As no money passed to Ministers or from Ministers to Patrons, this charge had moral force, but no legal effect, either in Church or civil courts. Discontented Parishioners had many options open to them at every level of Church and Civil courts to question the suitability of a candidate, on educational, moral, or practical grounds, but more normally on the firmness of his attachment to theWestminster Confession of Faith. They could also query the right of a particular Patron, or his Commissioner, or the timing, or formal wording of a particular presentation, or whether formal Church processes had been properly carried out.
In addition to formal, legal opposition, many disputed appointments were occasions for popular demonstrations of discontent, sometimes linked to political demands for moredemocracy. Presbyteries were empowered to call in the army to impose a disputed appointment.
The act was highly opposed by theChurch of Scotland because of its intrusion into church elections and was consideredlay investiture. The General Assembly of 1712, inserted a clause in the instructions to its Commissioners to protest to Parliament and this instruction was repeated annually until 1784.[10] However, due to the strength of thearistocracy, the act remained in force for a considerable length of time. It was finally repealed by section 3 of theChurch Patronage (Scotland) Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 82).
An act of Parliament, 1719, required any presentee to declare his willingness to take up his patron's offer, to prevent a patron from presenting a candidate whom he knew would not take up a post, in order to profit himself from the stipend. Many optimistically thought this was the end of patronage, as no right-thinking Presbyterian would declare willingness to accept a patron's offer, but after an uncertain few years, patronage continued as the norm.[11]
An Act by the General Assembly of 1730, by which objectors to decisions of Church courts could no longer have these objections officially recorded, was regarded byEvangelicals as a move to silence their opposition to Patronage.
When a Patron failed to nominate a candidate for a vacancy within six months, his right of Patronage fell to the Presbytery. Each Presbytery proceeded as it saw fit, but the General Assembly of 1732 passed an Act which regulated this, by establishing the 1690 rules, granting the Patronage right to theHeritors andElders, with procedures to be followed if a congregation objected to a candidate. Some members, includingEbenezer Erskine wanted to see the regulations of 1649 applied, by which all heads of families in a congregation called a Minister. The fact that they could no longer have their objections recorded led to the first schism in the Church of Scotland - theOriginal Secession.
The General Assembly of 1834 enacted the Veto Act, which prohibited the installation of a patron-presented minister in a congregation if the heads of a majority of member households objected to him and gave their reasons to the presbytery.[12] This event marked the end of the dominance of theModerates and showed the strength of theEvangelicals.
A series of civil actions in the period 1838 - 1841 in theCourt of Session, and confirmed in theHouse of Lords declared the above Veto Actultra vires, so it was unenforceable by law. They also indicated that theChurch of Scotland, having been set up by statute, was subject to the law of the land in all civil matters. Its Presbyteries were liable to severe financial penalties if they resisted Patron's nominees using the Veto Act. Court orders were made forbidding theordination of Ministers who might harm the interests of a Patron's nominee.[13] This led to theGreat Disruption of 1843 - a walk-out of about 40% of the Ministers, led byThomas Chalmers - and the setting up of theFree Church of Scotland. This Church at the time had no doctrinal or theological difference with the majority of Ministers who remained in theChurch of Scotland, but it contained the greater proportion of evangelical ministers. Those who remained within theChurch of Scotland were determined to remain within the law, and in 1874 they secured abolition of the Patronage Act.
By theChurch Patronage (Scotland) Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 82), 163 years after the 1711 act, lay patronage was abolished for the Church of Scotland, thus enabling presbyteries to follow canon law in the choice of ministers. Initially, ministers were chosen by a meeting of all the heads of households and elders, but a sophisticated process of trials was then developed, which by the second half of the twentieth century, also allowed women a voice in the selection of ministers. The General Assembly introduced the innovation ofdeaconesses in 1898, created the concept of women elders in 1966, and the concept of women ministers in 1968.
