New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-07-04

Disruption of the Church OF Scotland
We have delayed, for lack OF room, much
longer than we intended, such statement, bret
as it must necessarily be- of the prominent facts
attending the recent disruption of the Church OF
Scotland as should enable our readers to form at
least some general notion of the merits OF the
controversy and the importance OF the move
ment. But as the question is one OF permanent
and not merely of temporary interest, we may
render our readers service by doing now what
we should have done before.
1t will not be easy to trace to its source the
difficulty which has now reached It's climax. Sc
ccssons from the Church Establishment IN Scot
land have been frequent during all the last cen
tury but they have been small, and IN compa-
rison with this, quite unimportant. The ques-
lions which have been of most influence IN eff
fecting this separation are two
|. The first relates TO the legality of what is
called the Veto Act, passed in lS34,-slnce which
time the subject has continued to excite great
attention, and the division between the opposing
parties has become yearly more and more de-
cided Previous to that time, the presentations to
very large proportion Of the Scottish Churches
were wholly prioate property, in the hands some
Of them of the crown, and others of individuals.
The patronage thus possessed as all patronage
inevitably does, soon became more or less cor
rupt; and the presentations were made with very
little reference or regard to the wishes or welfare
of the members of the Churches. OF course they
became unpopular, and the opposition to them
became so strong and universal that the General
Assembly-the Convocation or Ecclesiastical
Parliament Of the Kirk-in 1884 passed an Act
giving authority to the male heads OF families IN
communion with the church, to reto or REJECT any
minister ,rhom patron might present to "a
cant parish. This act, of course, was the occa-
sion of no little excitement and discussion, and
| its legality was loudly denied. Cases soon arose
| in which it was tested The first was that OF the
Prcsbytery OF Auchtervarder. The presentee
was petoed by the Congregation to which he was
presented, and in consequence rejected by the
Presbytery, which acted under the General AS
sembly. In conjunction with his patron he at
once appealed to the Ciril Courts, bringing an
action against the Presbytery, maintaining that
they had no right to reject him on the mere ground
of the reto of the parishioners. The decision was
in favor of the patron and presentee. 1t was car
riod by the Presbytery to the House of Lords, and
there confirmed. A similar question arose In the
case ofthe Ministers OF Strathbogie, with similar
result.
2. The other principal question was of still
more Importance, as its decision, as given, would
have moro extended retrospective action-eSclu
ding, In fact, from their seats III the Church
| Courts, OF ministers and as many elders. Il
arose thus the General Assembly is composed
of representatives from the different Presbyteres
from Royal Boroughs and from the Universities
and as each parish minister is member OF his par
ticular PresbyteTy he is eligible as representa-
tive in the Assembly. During the several years
last past there being great demand for church
extension, SUBSIDIARY places of worship, called cha
pels of ease. were erected: and there being great
difficulties in the ayof constructing new parish.
es, various localities in extensive districts were
converted into parishes quoad sacra, the minis
tiers of which were provided for by a crown grant
called the Royal Bounty. The ministers of such
chapes and parishes have become very numerous
and the General Assembly had conferred upon
them the privileges OF regular pa1ochial ministers,