This large and influential section of the Scottish church was organized into a religious denomination, distinct from the Establishment, in the year 1843. The conflict between the "Evangelicals" and the "Moderates," which at length terminated in this great division, was chiefly on the long vexed question of patronage.
From the days of Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine-whose secession from the Established church we have already noticed-the evangelical party had been opposed to the interference of patrons with the religious rights of congregations. But under the powerful ministry of Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow, and Dr. Thomson in Edinburgh, the tide of popular feeling was decidedly turned in favor of the anti-patronage movement. In the General Assembly of 1834, the evangelical party introduced the celebrated Veto Act, which was passed by a majority of forty-six. By this act, it was declared to be a fundamental law of the church, that no minister should be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the christian people; and the better to effect this, it enacted, that if a majority of male heads of families, being communicants, should object to any presentee, the presbytery, on that ground alone without inquiry into the reasons, should also reject him. The objectors, however, were required, if called upon, to declare solemnly before the presbytery that they were actuated by no malicious motives, but solely by a conscientious regard to their own spiritual interests, or those of the congregation. The legality, or rather the illegality of this act, which directly interfered with the civil rights of patrons, was soon put to the test.
In the course of a few months after the Veto Act had passed into ecclesiastical law, the Earl of Kinnoul presented Mr. Robert Young to the parish church of Auchterarder; but the presentee, not meeting with the approval of the congregation, was rejected, and the presbytery refused to ordain him. The earl, not willing to be deprived of his rights as a patron, appealed to the civil tribunals; long law-suits followed, and the whole question was raised as to the terms of the connection between church and state.
The decision of the Court of Session not only went against the church party, but proceeded to enforce compliance with its decisions by pecuniary penalties, and awarding damages to the persons deprived of their churches, by the presbytery refusing to induct them. The protesters were now a large, popular, and influential body; they would admit of no compromise; they took the ground of martyrs, and maintained that they were contending for the "CROWN RIGHTS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE ALONE KING AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH." Public meetings were held in all parts of the country, and addressed by ministers in the most exciting style, until Scotland was in a state of religious agitation and ferment from one end to the other. Lay patronage was denounced, as contrary to the spirit, principles, and constitution of the Presbyterian church of Scotland, and the Veto Act treated as of divine appointment. In place of submitting to the law as declared by the Court of Session, the assembly of that year-1842-declared by a large majority, that lay patronage ought to be abolished; they also issued a "Claim of Rights" against the encroachments of the civil courts. A memorial to this effect was presented to the government, but with no favorable effect; and on the 9th of August, the House of Lords gave judgment against the majority of the presbytery of Auchterarder, finding them liable in damages to Mr. Young and the Earl of Kinnoul.