obedience to the decrees of the civil courts of the realm, or to claim the exercise of rights which those courts had pronounced illegal. The church regarded them as encroachments upon her spiritual functions.

of General

May, 1842.

Sir James

It was plain that such a conflict of jurisdictions could not endure much longer. One or the other must Claim and yield; or the legislature must interfere to prevent declaration confusion and anarchy. In May 1842, the Gen- Assembly, eral Assembly presented to Her Majesty a claim, declaration, and protest, complaining of encroachments by the Court of Session; and also an address, praying for the abolition of patronage. These communications were followed by a memorial to Sir Robert Peel and the other members of his government, praying for an answer to the complaints of the church, which, if not redressed, would inevitably result in the disruption of the establishment. On behalf of the government, Sir James Graham, Answer of Secretary of State for the Home Department, re- Graham, Jan. turned a reply, stern and unbending in tone, and 4th, 1843. with more of rebuke than conciliation. The aggression, he said, had originated with the Assembly, who had passed the illegal Veto Act, which was incompatible with the rights. of patrons as secured by statute. By the standards of the church, the Assembly were restrained from meddling with civil jurisdiction: yet they had assumed to contravene an Act of Parliament, and to resist the decrees of the Court of Session, the legal expositor of the intentions of the legislature. The existing law respected the rights of patrons to present, of the congregation to object, and of the church courts to hear and judge, to admit or reject the candidate. But the Veto Act deprived the patrons of their rights, and transferred them to the congregations. The government were determined to uphold established rights and the jurisdiction of the civil courts; and would certainly not consent to the abolition of patronage. To this letter the General Assembly returned an answer of extraordinary logical

force; but the controversy had reached a point beyond the domain of argument.1

Quoad sacra ministers, Jan 20th, 1843.

The church was hopelessly at issue with the civil power. Nor was patronage the only ground of conflict. The General Assembly had admitted the ministers of quoad sacra parishes and chapels of ease to the privileges of the parochial clergy, including the right of sitting in the assembly and other church courts.2 The legality of the acts of the Assembly was called in question; and in January 1843, the Court of Session adjudged them to be illegal. On the meeting of the Assembly on the 31st of January, a motion was made, by Dr. Cook, to exclude the quoad sacra ministers from that body, as disqualified by law; but it was lost by a majority of ninety-two. Dr. Cook and the minority, protesting against the illegal constitution of the Assembly, withdrew; and the quoad sacra ministers retained their seats, in defiance of the Court of Session. The conflict was approaching its crisis; and, in the last resort, the Assembly agreed upon a petition to Parliament, complaining of the encroachments of the civil courts upon the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, and of the grievance of patronage. This petition was brought under the consideration of the Commons by Mr. Fox Maule. He ably presented the entire case for the church; and the debate elicited the opinions of ministers and the most eminent members of all parties. Amid expressions of respect for the church, and appreciation of the learning, piety, and earnestness of her rulers, a sentiment prevailed that, until the General Assembly had rescinded the Veto Act in deference to the decision of the House of Lords, the interposition of Parliament could scarcely be claimed on her behalf. She had taken up her position, in open defiance of the civil authority; and nothing would satisfy her claims but 1 Papers presented in answer to addresses of the House of Coramons, Feb. 9th and 10th, 1843.

Petition of General Assembly, March 7th, 1843.

2 Acts of Assembly, 1833, 1834, 1837, and 1839.

8 Stewarton Case, Bell, Murray, &c., Reports, iv. 427.

submission to her spiritual jurisdiction. Some legislation might yet be possible; but this petition assumed a recognition of the claims of the church, to which the majority of the House were not prepared to assent. Sir Robert Peel regarded these claims as involving "the establishment of an ecclesiastical domination, in defiance of law," which "could not be acceded to without the utmost ultimate danger, both to the religious liberties and civil rights of the people." The House concurred in this opinion, and declined to entertain the claims of the church by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five.1

The seces

This decision was accepted by the non-intrusion party as conclusive; and preparations were immediately made for their secession from the church.2 The sion, May 18th, 1843. General Assembly met on the 18th of May, when a protest was read by the moderator, signed by 169 commissioners of the Assembly, including quoad sacra ministers and lay elders. This protest declared the jurisdiction assumed by the civil courts to be "inconsistent with Christian liberty, and with the authority which the Head of the church hath conferred on the church alone." It stated that, the word and will of the state having recently been declared that submission to the civil courts formed a condition of the establishment, they could not, without sin, continue to retain the benefits of the establishment to which such condition was attached, and would therefore withdraw from it, retaining, however, the confession of faith and standards of the church. After the reading of this protest, the remonstrants withdrew from the Assembly; and, joined by many other ministers, constituted the "Free Church of Scotland." Their schism was founded on the first principles of the Presbyterian polity, repugnance to lay patronage, and repudiation of the civil

1 Ayes, 76; Noes, 211. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., lxvii. 354, 441. See alsc debate in the Lords on Lord Campbell's resolutions, March 31st; Ibid. lxviii. 218; Debate on Quoad Sacra Ministers, May 9th; Ibid., lxix. 12.

2 Minute of Special Commission of the General Assembly, March 20th; Ann. Reg., 1843, p. 245.

jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs. These principles, - at issue from the very foundation of the church, — had now torn her asunder.1

Veto Act rescinded.

A few days afterwards, the General Assembly rescinded the Veto Act, and the act admitting quoad sacra ministers to that court; and annulled the sentences upon the Strathbogie ministers. The seceders were further declared to have ceased to be members of the church, and their endowments pronounced vacant.2 The church thus submitted herself, once more, to the authority of the law; and renewed her loyal alliance with the state.

The secession embraced more than a third of the clergy of the church of Scotland; and afterwards received considerable accessions of strength. Some of the most eminent of the clergy,

The Free
Church of
Scotland.

were its leaders.

including Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Candlish, Their eloquence and character insured the popularity of the movement; and those who denied the justice of their cause, and blamed them as the authors of a grievous schism, could not but admire their earnestness and noble self-denial. Men, highly honored in the church, had sacrificed all they most valued to a principle which they conscientiously believed to demand that sacrifice. Their once crowded churches were surrendered to others, while they went forth to preach on the hillside, in tents, in barns, and stables. But they relied, with just confidence, upon the sympathies and liberality of their flocks; and in a few years the spires of their free

1 Sydow's Scottish Church Question, 1845; D'Aubigné's Germany, England, and Scotland, 377-459; Buchanan's Ten Years' Conflict.

2 Ann. Reg., 1843, p. 250; D'Aubigné's Germany, England, and Scotland, 443-459.

8 of 947 parish ministers, 214 seceded; and of 246 quoad sacra ministers, 144 seceded. - Ann. Reg., 1843, p. 255; Speech of Lord Aberdeen, June 13th, 1843; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., Ixix. 1414; Hannay's Life of Dr. Chal

mers.

4 In eighteen years they contributed 1,251,4581. for the building of churches, manses, and schools; and for all the purposes of their new estab lishment no less a sum than 5,229,631. Tabular abstracts of sums con

kirks were to be seen in most of the parishes of Scotland.

When this lamentable secession had been accomplished, the government at length undertook to legislate Patronage upon the vexed question of patronage. In 1840, Act, 1843. Lord Aberdeen had proposed a bill, in the vain hope of reconciling the conflicting views of the two parties in the church; and this bill he now offered as a settlement of the claims of patrons, the church, and the people. The Veto Act had been pronounced illegal, as it delegated to the people the functions of the church courts; and in giving the judgment of the House of Lords, it had been laid down that a presbytery, in judging of the qualifications of a minister, were restricted to an inquiry into his "life, literature, and doctrine." The bill, while denying a capricious veto to the people, recognized their right of objecting to a presentation, in respect of "ministerial gifts and qualities, either in general, or with reference to that particular parish;" of which objections the presbytery were to judge. In other words, they might show that a minister, whatever his general qualifications, was unfitted for a particular parish. He might be ignorant of Gaelic, among a Gaelic population: or too weak in voice to preach in a large church or too infirm of limb to visit the sick in rough Highland glens. It was argued that, with so wide a field of objection, the veto was practically transferred from the people to the presbytery; and that the bill being partly declaratory amounted to a partial reversal of the judgment of the Lords in the Auchterarder case. But, after learned discussions in both Houses, it was passed by Parliament, in the hope of satisfying the reason able wishes of the moderate party in the church, who respected the rights of patrons, yet clung to the Calvinistic. principle which recognized the concurrence of the people.1 tributed to Free Church of Scotland to 1858-1859, with MS. additions for the two following years, obtained through the kindness of Mr. Dunlop, M.P 1 Lords' Deb., June 13th, July 3d, 17th, 1843; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., Ixix. 1400; xx. 534, 1202; Commons' Deb., July 31st, Aug. 10th, 1843; Hans. Deb., lxxi. 10, 517; 6 & 7 Vict. c. 61.