PATRONAGE is a real or heritable right, of a peculiar nature, connected with ecclesiastical benefices,and of which the main privilege is that of presenting a person to the bishop, presbytery, or other competent ecclesiastical functionaries, in order to his being admitted, according to the rules of the church, to the ecclesiastical office to which the benefice is attached, and of being thereby inducted into the possession of the benefice. This right had its origin in the choice by particular churches, or the appointment by the prince on their application, of defenders of their rights and patrimony. These were at first chosen from scholastics or lawyers, and afterwards from nobles and men of arms, and were termed patroni, defensores, et advocati ecclesiae, from which last title comes the namejws advocationis or advowson, still applied to the right. Originally the privilege of presenting formed no part of the right of the patrons, who were chiefly guardians of the property of the church, with a certain interest in the funds, termed patronagium. In time, founders of churches, or those who acquired right to be so considered by adding to the building or to the endowment, came to be regarded as patrons; and the fourth council of Toledo, in the seventh century, gave to the descendants of founders a right to see that the incumbents did not embezzle or alienate the funds, to which the ninth council (691) added the right of nominating the successor, confining this privilege, however, to the original founder himself, without extending it to his heirs. The office of patron soon became hereditary, but it would appear, from the Novels of Justinian, that in [7:17:145]his time the right of presentation was only allowed to the descendants of founders in the case of oratories or private chapels (Nov. 123, c. 18), the privilege in regard to churches being apparently confined to the original founder (Nov. 57, c. 2). Subsequently, however, the right of presenting was allowed to descendants in regard to churches also, which gradually became almost universally patronale; and ultimately a rule was introduced into the canon law, that where no right of patronage could be shown to exist, the benefice was to be deemed subject to that of the pope as universal patron. The general character of the right of patronage was the same in all the kingdoms where the canon law was received; and although some partial modifications may have been admitted since the Reformation in particular countries, its principal features remain unchanged. We shall content ourselves with a sketch of it as it exists in the northern portion of this island, which presents some peculiarities not unattended with interest.

In Scotland, as in the other countries of Christendom, the system of patronage, as it existed under the canon law, became universally prevalent; but it is not thought to have been introduced earlier than the tenth century. Before the Reformation, however, a very great change had taken place in the condition of the parochial benefices. A large proportion of these were from time to time annexed or appropriated, by grant of the patrons, to bishoprics, abbacies, priories, and other religious establishments. The benefices thus appropriated were termed patrimonial, and were no longer the subjects of the right of patronage. Such benefices were permanently filled by the bishops or religious houses, who drew the tithes as titular rectors, whilst the cures were served either by a member of the religious community to which the benefice was annexed, or by a chaplain or curate having a salary paid him for his services, or at times by a proper vicar drawing vicarage tithe, though in many cases the vicarages also became appropriated as well as the parsonages. A check was attempted to be opposed to this practice of annexation by a statute in the reign of James III. (1471, c. 43); but so general had it been, that at the period of the Reformation there were in Scotland only 262 non-appropriated parochial benefices out of the whole number, consisting of about 940. These 262 were of course the only patronale parochial benefices, and they were partly of laic patronage and partly subject to that of bishops or other ecclesiastics. On the Reformation, the benefices were generally retained by the Roman Catholic incumbents; and in regard to abbacies and other prelacies (as the greater benefices were termed), these were assumed to have fallen to the crown on the abolition of the religious bodies to which they belonged, and were gradually gifted by the crown, first by temporary titles, and ultimately by permanent grant and erection into temporal lordships, to the nobles and persons of influence about the court. The annexed churches of these prelacies were in general totally unprovided for, the obligation to maintain a stipendiary substitute, incumbent upon the religious establishment to which the benefice was attached, not being fulfilled by the new lay proprietors. To provide a maintenance to the ministers serving the cures of these churches, which constituted the greater proportion of the whole parochial churches, the third of the rents of all benefices, including abbacies and other prelacies, was directed to be levied, to form a fund, out of which special grants might be made to such ministers; but this fund of “thirds” was so misapplied, that in reality the ministers were for many years dependent mainly on the voluntary contributions of their congregations, or of individual proprietors in their parishes. For a considerable period these stipendiary cures remained free from patronage; but James VI., notwithstanding the remonstrances of the church, gradually erected them into benefices, subject to the patronage of the respective lords of erection, though, as Sir George Mackenzie, a high prerogative Iawyer of the reign of Charles II., observes, “nothing could be so unjust or illegal as these patronages were.”

In the meanwhile, as far as regarded the patronale parochial benefices, it had been enacted by a statute, passed in 1567, alongst with a series of acts abolishing Popery and recognising the reformed church, that, whilst the examination and admission of ministers were declared to be in the kirk, the presentation of laic patronages should be reserved to the just and ancient patrons. There was no reservation of ecclesiastic patronages, and the lay patron was required, within six months after he should come to the knowledge of the vacancy, to present a qualified person to the superintendent or others having commission of the kirk (who then executed the functions subsequently devolved upon presbyteries), otherwise the right of presenting was to fall to the kirk. It was further provided, that if the superintendent refused to admit the person presented by the patron, the latter might appeal to the superintendent and ministers of the province, in other words, to the provincial synod, and from them to the General Assembly, “by whom,” the act bears, “the cause being decided, shall take end as they decern and declare.” Small as was the number of unappropriated parochial benefices or parsonages to which ministers might be appointed as rectors, these were, in a great many instances, conferred upon persons not in the function of the ministry at all; and, even in 1592, it is set forth in a statute of that year, that these benefices had been generally “disponed to bairns and other persons altogether unable for the said office and function.” To remedy th is evil, all gifts of such benefices “to sik persons as are not in the function of the ministry, or able to discharge the duty thereof,” are by the act declared to be null, with an exception as to those conferred on senators of the College of Justice (the judges of the supreme civil court); and by another statute of the same year, establishing the presbyterian form of church government as it at present exists, presentations were appointed to be directed to presbyteries, which had been generally erected in 1581, with power to them to give collation; but providing always, that they should be bound to receive and admit whatever “qualified minister” should be presented by the king or laic patrons. The same act provided that a previous statute of 1584, declaring the king’s supremacy over all estates, as well V spiritual as temporal,” and that he and his councils were judges competent over all persons spiritual or temporal, and in “all causes,” should in no way be prejudicial “to the privilege that God has given to the spiritual officebearers of the kirk,” in regard, amongst other matters, to the “collation and deprivation of ministers.” In 16Í2 presbytery was abolished, episcopal government restored, and the king’s supremacy in all matters spiritual or temporal again unqualifiedly declared; and at the same time it was provided, that if the bishop, to whom presentations were now to be directed, should refuse to admit a “qualified minister” presented by the lawful patron, not only might the patron retain the fruits of the benefice in his own hands, but letters of horning might be obtained to compel the bishop, by the usual executorials of the law, “to do his duty” in admitting the person presented. The remedy thus provided applied only to the case of presentees who had been already admitted to the function of the ministry, as appears also to have been the intent of the provision as to the corresponding obligation on presbyteries to receive presentees, contained in the act 1592, and the privilege of retaining the stipend, provided also for the case of the presbytery’s refusal to admit a qualified “minister,” in another act of the same year, which is generally viewed as merely an additional clause of that termed the charter of presbytery; so that there does not appear to have been any remedy for refusal to admit a pre [7:17:146] sentee not already in orders, nor any compulsitor to compel even the bishops (who were subject to legal diligence to enforce admission of a party ordained) to grant ordination.

In 1638 presbytery was restored, and the king’s supremacy in matters spiritual disclaimed; and in 1642 his majesty agreed, that as to all crown patronages, he would present one out of a list or leet, to be furnished by the presbytery, and which they were to make up with the advice and consent of the greater part of the parishioners. The practical result of this method was, that in all parishes subject to the patronage of the crown, the particular individual for whom the parish declared a preference generally obtained the presentation; and in 1649 patronage was altogether abolished by an act of the estates of parliament. By this statute it was declared, that “whosoever should, upon the suit and calling of the congregation, after due examination of their literature and conversation, be admitted by any presbytery unto the exercise and function of the ministry in any parish within this kingdom,” should, without any presentation, but simply “by virtue of their admission,” be entitled to the stipend, manse, and glebe; and in order that the proper interests of congregations and presbyteries, and what should be accounted the congregation having such interest, might be determined, it was recommended to the General Assembly “clearly to determine the same, and to condescend upon a certain standing way for being a rule therein for all time coming.” The General Assembly accordingly established a directory, which in substance provided that the session of the congregation were to elect a person, whom they were to nominate to the congregation; that if the people acquiesced and consented, the matter was to be reported to the presbytery, who were to take the party chosen on trials, and, if found qualified, to admit him; that if the major part of the congregation dissented, the matter should in like manner be reported to the presbytery, who were to order a new election, unless they found the dissent to be founded on “causeless prejudices ;” but that if only a minority dissented, the presbytery were, notwithstanding, to proceed to the trials and settlement, unless relevant exceptions were verified to them. Under this arrangement matters continued till the Restoration, when episcopacy, the king’s supremacy in matters spiritual, and absolute patronage, were re-established. These, again, were all done away at the Revolution, when the presbyterian church government was restored, and the matter of the appointment of ministers placed on a totally new footing. By the act 1690, c. 23, patrons were deprived of the right of presentation, in consideration of a sum of six hundred merks Scots (L.33. 6s. 8d. sterling), and of a right to all tithes in the parishes of which they were patrons, to which no one else could show a title. The six hundred merks were to be paid by the heritors of the parish, who were entitled to consign the money, and compel the patron to execute a formal renunciation; whilst the patron, on the other hand, had efficient remedies afforded him for enforcing payment of the compensation. The patron’s right to present, however, ceased from the date of the act, and the privilege became competent to the new parties who were now to be intrusted with it, whether the compensation was paid or not. These consisted of the heritors of the parish, being Protestants, and the elders, who were jointly to propose a person to the congregation, “to be either approven or disapproven by them and if the congregation disapproved, the disapprovers were to give in their reasons to the presbytery, by whose judgment the “calling and entry” of the minister was to be determined. Under this statute only three or four parishes paid the compensation money, and obtained renunciations from the patrons. The heritors and elders being in possession of their privilege without payment, and not anticipating the repeal of a statute considered as an essential part of the Revolution settlement, naturally did not press payment of the sum, small though it was; whilst the patrons, entertaining the hope of at some favourable opportunity recovering their power, of course refrained from compelling payment, and granting renunciations, and thereby, for a consideration so trifling, cutting off that hope. The expectations of the patrons proved just, and in 1711, the 10th of Queen Anne, restoring their former rights, was passed. This measure, which originated with the opponents of the protestant succession, was hurried through the House of Commons before the members of the church were aware of it. A deputation was, however, immediately despatched by the commission of Assembly, who presented a remonstrance to the House of Lords, and offered every opposition in their power, but unsuccessfully; and no subsequent efforts to obtain its repeal, which were repeatedly renewed by the church, were of any avail. The assembly for many years inserted in their instructions to their commission an injunction to seize any favourable opportunity of applying to parliament for a repeal of this statute; but in 1784, the practice of inserting such injunction was discontinued, the majority of the clergy, now for a long period introduced by means of patronage, having become favourable to its subsistence; and the right still continues to rest upon the footing on which it was placed by the 10ch of Queen Anne. By that statute, patrons, with the exception of the few cases where the six hundred merks had been paid, and renunciations obtained, had their former privileges restored, whilst they were also allowed to retain the rights to tithes granted them by the act 1690, as part of the compensation for the privilege then taken from them; and the sovereign, in addition to the proper crown patronages, acquired right to all those which had belonged to the bishops and archbishops, having previously at the Revolution, without any statutory authority, assumed possession, jure coronae, of all the tithes and property belonging to these dignitaries.

The right of patronage, as now existing, is an heritable right, which may be feudalized, and it may be united to and pass along with lands; whilst in regard to all patronages to which no legal title can be shown, the king is held to be patron, being deemed by lawyers to have succeeded in that privilege to the pope. The patron is allowed six months after each vacancy to present; and the period, by the 10th of Queen Anne, runs, not from the time when he may come to the knowledge of the vacancy, as under the act 1567, but from the date of the vacancy itself. If the patron “neglect or refuse” to present within the six months, the presbytery of the bounds become entitled to exercise the privilege jure devoluto ; but if he have executed a presentation, and taken all requisite steps for having it lodged with the moderator or clerk of presbytery within the proper time, he will not be held to have “neglected or refused,” so as to admit the jus devolutum, although, from causes over which he has no control, the presentation may not actually have been so lodged; as, for instance, if the patron of a church in Orkney, residing in Edinburgh, should execute and despatch a presentation in amply sufficient time to reach its destination under ordinary circumstances, but it should not arrive in consequence of an unusual prevalence of storms till the six months have expired. Where a presentee has been rejected by a presbytery as disqualified, or on other legal ground, the patron is allowed as long a period to present a second time, as remained unexpired of the six months when his first presentation was lodged. If, however, he have presented a minister already holding a cure, or a party who will not take the oaths to government, or one who shall not within the six months accept or declare his willingness to accept, his presentation of such a party will not stop the currency of the six months; [7:17:147]but if the presentation shall through any cause become ineffectual, and the six months have expired, theyws devolutum will take effect, as if no presentation had been offered. This provision was introduced by the 5th Geo. I. c. 29, mainly for the purpose of preventing patrons from keeping benefices vacant by the presentation of parties who either were disqualified, or would not accept, or whose acceptance was dependent, as in the case of ministers already settled, on the will of the church courts. Although, usually, there is only room for the exercise of the patron’s right when a vacancy occurs, the law, in special circumstances (where the presbytery are satisfied of the necessity of the proceeding, from the age or permanent illness of the incumbent), sanctions a presentation during his life to an assistant and successor, who, on being admitted and ordained by the presbytery, immediately becomes colleague in the pastoral charge, though he cannot enter into possession of any of the rights of the benefice till the death of the incumbent. In such cases a provision is always required by the presbytery to be made for the assistant and successor, either by the incumbent, or by obligation on the part of the parishioners, or certain of their number. The patron, before presenting, must take the usual oaths to government for persons in public trust; and if suspected of Popery he may be required to purge himself, by signing a special formula framed for that purpose. Any patron refusing to take the oaths, or to subscribe this formula, when required, forfeits his right of presenting for that time to the crown; and in the event of failure by the crown to present within six months, the jus devolutum accresces to the presbytery. Whether this disability can be evaded by the disqualified patron nominating a commissioner who can take the oaths, &c. seems not to be determined.

Originally there was no restriction on the patron’s choice in regard to the persons from among whom he might select his presentee, provided always that on trial the presentee should be found qualified. By a series of legislative-enactments, however, on the part of the church, a special class of persons has been constituted, from among whom alone (or ordained ministers previously taken from the same class) the patron must select his presentee. These are denominated expectants or probationers, or more generally, at the present day, licentitaes. They are required to go through a preparatory train of study, including a full university course of philosophy, and a course of theology, consisting of four years regular or six years irregular attendance on the professors of theology, in one or other of the universities. They are then taken on trials by the presbytery, that judicatory having previously satisfied themselves that the candidate is of “good report, sound in his principles, pious, sober, grave, and prudent in his behaviour; of a peaceable disposition, and well affected to the happy constitution established in this kingdom, both in church and state.” The trials consist of examination into the candidate’s knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, philosophy, theology, and church history, and the delivery of an exegesis in Latin on some controverted head of divinity, and three discourses in English, on which he may also be specially examined. If the presbytery be satisfied, and the candidate subscribe a formula acknowledging the Confession of Faith, and the presbyterian order of church government, and promising to submit himself to the judicatories of the church, they enrol him as a probationer, and grant him a license to preach the gospel. Though the party thus licensed possesses the privilege of preaching, and of leading in public worship, he holds no office in the church, he cannot administer the sacraments or marry, and is only considered as a recognised candidate on probation for the office of the ministry.

When a presentation in favour of a party qualified to accept of it in manner above mentioned, accompanied with his letter of acceptance, and certificate of his, and also of the patron’s, having taken the oaths to government, is lodged with the presbytery, if there be any legal objections to it, or if another party dispute the right of presentation, the presbytery generally delay procedure till the question raised be disposed of by the civil courts; but if there be no legal objection, and no competition, they usually pronounce a deliverance sustaining the presentation (though in certain presbyteries no special deliverance is ever pronounced on the presentation), and proceed with the steps towards forming the pastoral relationship between the presentee and congregation, admitting him to the benefice, and ordaining him to the office of the ministry, if not already an ordained minister. The first step is to appoint the presentee to preach to the congregation one or more times as the presbytery may see fit, and to fix thereafter a day for moderating in a call, as it is technically termed, in his favour; that is to say, appointing the presbytery to meet at the parish church on a particular day, or commissioning one of their number to attend on that day, to moderate in or preside over a meeting of the congregation, summoned for the purpose of giving a call to the presentee to be their pastor. On this occasion, after public worship, and a sermon by the minister appointed to preside, the heritors, elders, and parishioners present are invited to subscribe a written call, addressed to the presentee, which, after getting forth that the parties subscribing are destitute of a pastor, and have sufficient assurance of his piety, literature, abilities, and suitableness to their capacities, proceeds thus: “We heartily invite, call, and entreat you to undertake the office of a pastor among us, and the charge of our souls, promising you, upon your accepting this our call, all dutiful respect, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord.” Tire call being subscribed by as many as incline, the presbytery take it into consideration; and before proceeding to the trial of the qualifications of the presentee, they uniformly pronounce a deliverance, sustaining or concurring with the call. As this proceeding presents a marked peculiarity unknown in England, and as the question in regard to the competency of the church courts refusing to settle a presentee in respect of the absence of what they may consider a sufficient number of signatures to the call, or of the positive dissent from it by a majority of the congregation, or of the male heads of families in communion with the church, has given rise to keen discussion and most important consequences to the welfare of the church in past times, and has again become the subject of most anxious consideration, in a form which seems likely to lead to momentous results as regards the interests of the Church of Scotland, a short notice of its origin and history will probably be interesting and useful.

The Scottish reformers, in framing their scheme of church polity, adopted, in regard to the appointment of ministers, the principle confessedly acted on in the primitive ages of the church, when pastors were elected by the common consent of the clergy and people; and they allowed to the people that potential voice which they considered them to have enjoyed in the earliest times, prior to the introduction of those limitations and restrictions, which they conceived to have been imposed by the clergy at an after period, though still antecedently to the existence of patronage. Accordingly, in the First Book of Discipline, adopted in 1560, treating of “vocation,” or calling to the office of the ministry, which, used in a large and general sense, is said to consist of “election, examination, and admission,” our reformers declared, that “it appertaineth to the people and to every several congregation to elect their minister.” For this purpose the congregation were allowed forty days, and if they failed within that time to present[7:17:148] a person for examination, the superintendent, with his council (who exercised the functions now devolved on the presbytery), might present a person to them. It was, however, provided, that if, before the superintendent and his council, or superior church as it is termed, had thus offered them a minister, the inferior church or congregation had agreed upon a person who on examination should be found qualified, the latter was to be preferred to the party nominated by the superintendent and his council; but, on the other hand, if the congregation still failed to offer a person for examination, then they were to be judged unreasonable if they refused the party offered by the superintendent and his council, and might be compelled to receive him, by the censures of the church. In the Second Book of Discipline, agreed to by the church in 1578, it would rather appear, though that has been doubted, that the initiative was intended to be with the presbytery; but at all events the consent of the people was equally required; and it cannot be disputed that, in the intention of the framers of this book, the refusal to consent, though without reasons assigned and judged sufficient by the presbytery, was considered a fatal defect in the vocation to the pastoral office. Such being the system prescribed by the church, it so happened, from the peculiar state of matters in regard to the parochial cures, that for many years after the Reformation it became in practice the general rule for the appointment of ministers. As already noticed, the unannexed parochial benefices, which alone afforded an opportunity for the exercise of patronage, were comparatively few; these were not vacated by the Roman Catholic clergy, but only gradually fell by the death of the subsisting incumbents, when in most cases they were conferred pleno pire, by the crown and other patrons, on parties not in the function of the ministry at all. As to the remaining churches, constituting by far the larger proportion of the whole, there was no right of maintenance attached to them; and the ministers of these were appointed, not to a benefice, but simply to a cure of souls, with a chance of procuring a pension out of the general fund of “thirds,” by special grant from the Exchequer, or otherwise being left to be supported by the contributions of their flocks. Of these cures, while they remained in this condition, there was of course no patronage, and thus, in by far the greater number of cases, there was no obstacle of the nature of a right of presentation to obstruct the rules prescribed by the church from being freely acted upon. Accordingly there is evidence that in general ministers were appointed during the first period after the Reformation, either by the direct choice of the people, or with their full consent. The manner of appointment was not always uniform, and the voice of the congregation was expressed in diverse ways; but still their voice was required and given; and this is stated by an author intimately acquainted with the records of the times (the late learned Dr M‘Crie) to have been the case even where there existed a right of patronage.^[1. Life of Melville, vol. i. note EE, p. 467. ]

When the congregation themselves elected, their wishes appear to have been expressed in the form of a call or invitation, of which the very first election of a pastor amongst the reformers (the choice of Knox as colleague to John Rough by the congregation in the castle of St Andrews) affords an example, or rather the model, agreeably to which the after-practice was fashioned. In accordance with a prior agreement, Rough, after sermon, addressed himself to Knox in these words, as recorded in Knox’s own history: “Brother, ye shall not be offended albeit I speak unto you that which I have in charge, even from all those that are here present, which is this: In the name of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, and in the name of those that presently call you by my mouth, I charge you that ye refuse not this holy vocation; but as ye tender the glory of God, the increase of Christ’s kingdom, the edification of your brethren, and the comfort of me, whom ye understand well enough to be oppressed by the multitude of labours, that ye take upon you the public office and charge of preaching, even as ye wish to avoid God’s heavy displeasure, and desire that he shall multiply his graces with you.” And in the end, he said to those that were present, “Was not this your charge unto me? And do ye not approve this vocation.” They answered, “It was, and we approve it.” In general, it would appear that the congregation usually expressed their wishes by commissioners deputed by them to the presbytery, or others having commission to examine and admit, and at times in the form of a letter; but in either way their election assumed substantially the form of a call directed to the party chosen through the presbytery, or others having the power for the time of examination and admission; and, in whatever mode expressed, the consent of the people was in practice a constant requisite to admission. Thus, it was over a church in which, from the absence of patronage in most instances, consequent on the want of benefices, either proper or stipendiary, the practice of admitting the people to an effective voice, in accordance with the polity recognised by the church courts, had already been established, that patronage was gradually extended. By the more effective restriction of presentations in the case of proper benefices to persons who were really to exercise the function of the ministry, and the gradual increase of patronages by the erection of stipendiary benefices by the king, the right of presentation was by degrees again extended over nearly the whole churches of the kingdom. This, however, was not a sudden or violent change, but a progressive superinduction of a right of patronage over churches in which the practice of requiring the consent of the people was already fixed and universally prevalent; and, accordingly, as might have been expected, it continued to co-exist, although there is doubtless a deficiency of evidence in regard to the actual effect on the right of presentation in patronale churches. That the right of presenting on the part of the patron, and the privilege on the part of the people of their consent being required, did, to a certain extent, run counter to each other, and create some obstruction in the settlement of ministers, may fairly be inferred from an act of assembly in 1596, by which it was enacted, that any one seeking a presentation without consent of the presbytery, should be deemed reus ambitus, and as such should be rejected; and that effect was in use to be given to this enactment, is clear from a recorded instance in 1602, regarding the parish of Aberlady, in which, while the presentee was found not to have been reus ambitus, he having been in ignorance that a presentation was applied for on his behalf, he was obliged to subscribe an obligation, placing his presentation in the hands of the presbytery, and was only sent to the congregation on a leet with others, the privilege of the people in this instance being allowed to supersede in a great measure the right of the patron. By this time, too, the independence of the church had been very nearly extinguished; and, shortly afterwards, episcopacy’, with its absolute patronage, was introduced. Even during its subsistence, however, and while the bishops might be compelled by legal diligence to admit a presentee in orders, the people appear to have persisted in claiming a voice, though, as may be supposed, generally without effect; evincing, however, how strongly the previous practice had been rooted in their [7:17:149]habits. During all the previous period, and from the restoration of presbytery in 1638, down to the abolition of patronage in 1649, it would rather seem that there was no such form as that of “moderating” in a call. The congregation appear to have met by themselves, without the presbytery or a member of presbytery to moderate in or preside over their proceedings. When, however, the directory of 1649 vested the election in the session, as that body, during a vacancy, was without a moderator, and so incapable of acting as a session unless a moderator were supplied, the directory specially provided that one of the presbytery should be appointed to attend and moderate in the session at their act of election; and this is the origin of the peculiar phrase to “moderate in a call,” which is still retained, although the meeting is of the congregation, and the presbytery as a body now usually attend themselves. Under this directory the election of the minister was vested in the elders of the congregation, at that time popularly chosen; and the voice of the people was subjected to this qualification, that the presbytery might disregard the dissent of a majority if they found it to be grounded on causeless prejudices. Under the act 1690, the heritors were joined with the elders, and the qualification enacted as to the voice of the people was more strict, the disapprovers of the person proposed being required to give in their reasons, to be judged of by the presbytery. The right of the heritors and elders under this statute was truly of the nature of a right of presentation, though in the act it was described as the right of “calling” a minister; a phraseology adopted, as is supposed, to render it more palatable to those most hostile to patronage. It was totally different, however, from the proper call by the congregation, although, undoubtedly, for some time after the act 1690 was repealed, a tendency to view the call with reference to that practice is apparent. For several years after the repeal of that act, in 1711, the exercise of the right of patronage was not attempted; and even when presentations began to be issued, they were usually in favour of a party who was likely to be preferred by the people; and the settlements in such cases uniformly proceeded on the call, without the slightest notice of the presentation. In like manner, for many years presentees never ventured to accept unqualifiedly a presentation; and the first instance of unqualified acceptance is said to have occurred in 1731. In the immediately preceding year a presentee had been for the first time since the passing of the 10th of Queen Anne settled in a parish by judgment of the Assembly, in virtue of a presentation, in opposition to the dissent of a majority of the people; and this judgment, which was an adherence to a sentence of the commission, was not rested on the merits of the cause, but was founded on the plea that the sentence of the commission was final and conclusive. After, however, such a settlement had once been accomplished, the Assembly proceeded avowedly on the ground of refusing effect to such dissents; and though several cases subsequently occur in which presentees were refused to be settled in consequence of dissents from the call, or deficiency of signatures to it, the general course of decisions was to sustain the call, without regard to the number of signatures or the extent of opposition (giving occasion to the two great secessions from the Church), till at last, towards the end of the century, the question as to the sufficiency of the call was rarely raised. In all cases, however, down to the present day, the invariable practice has been, that before proceeding to take the presentee on trials, a call is moderated in, and a judgment pronounced by the presbytery sustaining that call. Recently the disputes on this subject have been again revived; and, with a view to establish a definite rule for determining on the validity of the call, the church have passed an enactment, which sets out with a declaration that it is a fundamental law of the church that no pastor be in truded on a congregation contrary to the will of the people, and provides, that if the major part of the male heads of families in communion with the church, and members of the congregation, shall dissent from the call, the presentee shall be rejected. The legal effect of this provision, when acted on by a presbytery, is at present the subject of discussion in the courts of law.

Whatever may ultimately be determined on this point, it is the undisputed privilege of the congregation to give in, at the moderating in the call, specific objections to the presentee, which are not limited to his moral character and doctrine, nor to his talents or learning, but extend to every personal quality, of whatever nature, which may affect his fitness for the charge of the particular parish, viewed with reference to its peculiar characteristics and necessities. At any time, also, during the period allowed for trying the qualifications of the presentee, any of the communicants may proceed against him by libel, on any charge affecting his soundness in doctrine or his moral character; and, finally, when the trials are completed, and the presbytery are assembled for the purpose of ordination, any of them may appear in answer to the edict published to that effect, and demand to be allowed instanter to verify sufficient objections to the presentee’s life or doctrine. In the mean time, the presbytery have subjected him to trials of a nature similar to those prescribed for licentiates; and if they are satisfied, and no valid objections have been offered, they ordain him to the office of the ministry, and admit him as pastor of the parish.

Besides the right of presentation, the patron was entitled, in the event of a wrongful refusal of his presentee, to retain the stipend in his own band. By various statutes, however, he was subjected to the obligation of expending it on pious uses within the parish, though such a latitude was given in the interpretation of “pious uses” as to render the disposal of the stipend a matter of some interest to the patron. A recent statute, however, 54 Geo. III. c. 169, has transferred the vacant stipend to the fund for providing annuities to the widows of the clergy. Patrons also, in virtue of the act 1690, c. 23, are, as such, titulars or impropriators of all tithe in their parishes to which no one else can show right; this being a part of the compensation given them for the right of presentation thereby taken from them, and allowed to be retained by them after the right was restored; and, finally, if also heritors in the parish, they have right to the first choice of a family seat in the division and allotment of the area of the church. (r r.r r.)