Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T23:28:00.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Presbyterians and the Scottish Disruption: The Legal Phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Charles F. Mullett
Charles F. Mullett
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the great Disruption in the Scottish Church of a century ago has already been related in detail by various writers. Other students have described specific aspects. For instance, in a stimulating, thematic essay, Laski has outlined the political theory of the schism; from the vantage point of seventy-five years and the Baedeker of Figgis he saw the path of the Disruption more clearly than the seceders. This present paper, however, is concerned not with the Scottish phase or with Laski's pluralistic bias: it relates an English extension of the schism and suggests a few implications of that extension.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1943 , pp. 255 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although no completely satisfactory account of the Disruption exists, it has inspired an extensive body of literature. Anyone wishing to gain some appreciation of the topic can well begin with Erickson, Arvel B., “The Non-Intrusion Controversy in Scotland, 1832–1843”, Church History, XI (1942), 302–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which refers to most of the literature of the subject. In addition, one should by all means consult such legal sources as Robertson 's Reports, Dunlop 's Reports, and the House of Lords report, 6 Cl. & Fin. 646–756.

2 Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven, 1917), 27–68.Google Scholar The influential works of John Neville Figgis are The Divine Right of Kings (2nd ed., Cambridge 1914)Google Scholar, Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1923)Google Scholar, and Churches in the Modern State (London, 1913).Google Scholar

3 6 Cl. & Fin. 646–756; 9 Cl. & Fin. 251–326.

4 See especially my articles on the dissenters' legal position in the Virginia Law Review, XXI (1935), 641–64Google Scholar; XXII (1936), 495–526; XXIII (1937), 389–418; XXV (1939), 671–97; Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XVIII (1937), 44–53.Google Scholar

5 Attorney-General v. Wclsh (1844)Google Scholar, 4 Hare 572–89.

6 The doctrine that a chapel always remained dedicated to the purpose designed by the founder was first decided by Craigdallie v. Aikiman (1820)Google Scholar, 2 Bligh 529–45, and sustained some years later by Broom v. Summers (1840), 11 Sim. 353–60.Google Scholar Other cases had equal value in conceding this point but these two have especial significance, for they affected Presbyterians. Moreover, Broom v. Summers, though not directly related to the Disruption, did involve English-Scottish relations. Without summarizing all the details of this dispute between the minister and three quarters of his congregation on the one side and the remainder on the other, it can be said that the vice-chancellor stressed the importance of church government and discipline among Presbyterians. Because he felt that the minister and his followers, even though they formed the majority, had ceased through a change in discipline to form the congregation in view when the church was started, he decided in favor of the minority who adhered to the original terms of the association.

7 Attorney-General v. Gardner (1847-1848), 2 De G. & Sm. 102–21.Google Scholar

8 Attorney-General v. Munro (1848), 2 De G. & Sm. 122–203.Google Scholar

9 See Abstract of the Minutes of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church in England. Session IX. Held at Birmingham, on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th days of April. 1845 (London, 1845).Google Scholar

10 Attorney-General v. Murdoch (1849), 7 Hare 445–70Google Scholar; (1851–1852), 1 De G. M. & G. 86–146; (1856), 2 Kay and Johnson 571–74.

11 Westwood v. McKie (1869), 21 L. T. 165–67.Google Scholar

12 Erickson, loc. cit., 323–25.

13 It may be recalled that English Presbyterians were occupied at this time with a controversy that bulked larger than the Disruption. The defection, past and present, of many members into the ranks of Unitarianism stimulated an extensive and perfervid dispute concerning the right of Unitarian Presbyterians to worship in the chapels and benefit from trusts presumably designed for Trinitariaa Presbyterians. See in general James, T. S., The History of the Litigation and Legislation respecting Presbyterian Chapels and Charities in England and Ireland between 1816 and 1849 (London, 1867)Google Scholar. Three typical and spectacular eases were Attorney-General v. Pearson (1817), 3 Mar. 353–420Google Scholar; Shore v. Wilson (1842), 9 Cl. & Fin. 355–582Google Scholar; and Attorney-General v. Shore (1843), 11 Sim. 592–615.Google Scholar