Patronage. A patron is one who enjoys, along with other rights of less importance, the right of presenting a parochial minister to a vacant charge. It would appear that patrons were originally merely the guardians of the temporal property of particular churches; and that the rights afterwards attached to patronage were at first conceded by the Church only to those who endowed particular churches, with a view to encourage the practice. Afterwards, however, similar rights, in reference to other churches, were assumed by persons of influence in the neighbourhood; and while the Roman Catholic religion prevailed, the Pope, and since the Reformation the Crown, have claimed to be considered patrons of all churches in regard to which no right of patronage could be shown by individuals.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Patronage.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Patronage |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson v. Izat | 1781 | Ministers Stipend, Rent, Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Patronage | This case was about a dispute over a minister's stipend in the newly formed parish of Gorbals. |
| Balfour v. Earl of Moray | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament | Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Campbell v. Officers of State | 1784 | Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend | General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription. |
| Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others | 1770 | Powers of the Principal and Masters of the University, Deed, Deeds, Faculty, Patronage, Representation | The pursuers called into question an attempt by Doctor Leechman and others to impose a rigid interpretation of the constitution of the University of Glasgow, which would bar the rector and faculty from participating in the university's fiscal administration. The parties called attention to the set of rules prescribed by King James VI in 1577 concerning the government of the College and its funds. The Lord Ordinary found that based on the charter granted by the king, the whole revenue and property of the university (excepting such mortifications for bursars and other uses which are otherwise conveyed) was vested in the Principal and Masters. The Defenders asked the Lord Ordinary to alter his interlocutor. |
| Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1787 | Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance | Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others | 1795 | Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor | Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage. |
| Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun | 1798 | Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage, Parish, Augmentation | James Earl of Hopetoun petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor, arguing that teinds from lands belonging to Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, Baronet, should be allocated for a ministerial stipend despite free teinds remaining in the parish. Maxwell answered the petition, resisting the Earl's claim that his teinds should be appropriated while unallocated teinds were still available elsewhere in the parish. |
| Moray v. Heritors of Blackford | 1796 | Tack, Teinds, Interlocutor, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage | Colonel Charles Moray petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor concerning the locality of teinds, arguing that his teinds were not inferior to bishops' teinds and ought to be allocated pari passu. The Heritors of Blackford answered, contending that the locality was erroneous and that the teinds were not bishop's teinds. Moray replied, reiterating his claim regarding the status of his teinds, and the Heritors duplied, maintaining that the teinds were not exempt from augmentation because they were not bishop's teinds. |
| Officers of State v. Skene | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Charter | The Officers of State pursued Messrs Skene and Elmslie regarding the tithes of Daviot parish, contending that the teinds belonged to the Bishop of Aberdeen as a mensal church rather than to the minister as parsonage, and asserting the Crown's right to allocate augmentation ultimo loco. The defenders maintained that the teinds of their lands were payable to the minister of Daviot as parsonage teinds, rejecting the claim that the church was mensal to the bishop. The parties exchanged memorials presenting these opposing arguments on the destination of the teinds and the Crown's consequent augmentation rights. |
| Ogilvie v. Scott | 1792 | Teinds, Patronage, Charter, Heritor, Debt, Parish | |
| Paisley v. David Erskine | 1770 | Right to dispose a Parish, Appointment of Patrons, Patronage, Presbytery, Representation, Disposition | In January 1769, the parish of Erskine, in the presbytery of Paisley became vacant, by the death of the Reverend Mr James Lundie. Mr. David Erskine alleged to have acquired the right to the patronage from Lord Blantyre, the patron of the parish, who was in Italy by the time the vacancy occurred. The Presbytery took some procedure in the church courts and appointed someone for the position, but it was not accepted. The Presbytery then brought a declaratory action to review and declare that the right had fallen to them. The defender invoked cannon law to claim that the Presbytery right was proscribed after the six months. |
| Patrick Cunninghame v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh | 1800 | Aliment, Stipend, Sequestration, Teinds, Patronage, Debt | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh resolved to make St. Andrew’s Church a collegiate charge and to appoint the Reverend David Ritchie as second minister. Pursuer Patrick Cunningham, a dissenting council member, presented a bill of suspension against the resolution, arguing that the City could not afford the measure and that the appointment was unnecessary. The Defenders answered that the new appointment was proper and necessary. |
| Stewarts v. Scott | 1794 | Teinds, Charter, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Tack | Miss Bien and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued an action against Scott regarding bygone teinds in the parish of Ancrum. They petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Henderland Ordinary on the matter. Scott defended his title by memorial, maintaining that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds rather than mere patronage. |
| The Heritors of Portmoak v. Mrs Anne Jean Douglas. | 1795 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Lease, Heritor, Patronage | Mrs Anne Jean Douglas defended her teinds’ exemption from ministerial allocation against The Heritors of Portmoak, citing her lease from St Andrew's College and equitable precedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| The Parish of Lentrathen v. James Smith [Church of Scotland Case] | 1771 | Right to dispose a Parish, Presbytery, Patronage, Disposition, Heritor, Aliment | The Parish of Lentrahern (Lintrathen) lying in the presbytery of Meigle belonged to the family of Airly. Walter Ogilvy granted a settlement in favor of Mr. Edward over this parish as possessor of his father's estates. Mr. Smith challenged Ogilvy's right to patronage. |
| Walter Lord Torphichen v. Mr Gillon of Walhouse | 1765 | Valuation, Possession, Patronage, Heritor, Succession, Property | Walter Lord Torphichen, as suspender, asserted his entitlement to the whole loft in the new church on the basis that its dimensions corresponded to his former immemorial possession. John Gillon of Walhouse answered that Torphichen, being a heritor of a 120th share, could claim only a seat proportioned to his rent and not the entire loft. The case presented the question whether church seating rights derived from immemorial possession or from the proportional allocation according to rental valuation. |
| William McDouall v. Synod of Galloway | 1756 | Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Appeal | William McDouall, as appellant, asserted a right to present to united parishes under a later conveyance, but the Synod of Galloway, as respondents, defended the Crown's right to present and rejected McDouall's claim for lack of proven title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
Documents discussing this subject (80)
- Alexander Bayne v. John Wallace — Answers, 17 Feb 1797
- Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire — Answers, 19 Aug 1791
- Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire — Reclaiming Petition, 8 Dec 1791
- Alexander Wighton, Andrew Coats, and John M'Fie, Bailies of the Village and Barony of Gorbals; George Strang, Preses, George Young, late Preses, and Robert Shaw, James M'Lachlan, James... v. The Rev. Dr James M'Lean — Information, 27 Nov 1823
- APPENDIX. Minutes of the Presbytery of Stirling relative to the Glebe of Dollar, 9th December 1761, and 2d March 1762.
- Balfour v. Earl of Moray — Petition, 30 Nov 1796
- Campbell v. Officers of State — Petition, 23 Nov 1784
- College of Glasgow v. Henry Monteith, Esq. and others — Answers, 12 Jun 1813
- Colonel Charles Moray of Abercairney v. Heritors of the Parish of Blackford — Replies, 15 Nov 1796
- Convener Chambers and Others v. Doctor Maclagan and Others — Answers
- Donald Lindsay v. The Most Noble George, Marquis of Huntly — Summons, 26 Dec 1839
- Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others — Petition, 4 Dec 1770
- Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor — Petition, 26 Jul 1787
- EXTRACT JUDGMENT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the CHURCH of SCOTLAND, in the Case of the Rev. John Hunter.
- Heritors — Answers, 1 Mar 1796
- His Majesty's Advocate v. The Honourable Mrs Maria Hay M'Kenzie and Edward Hay M'Kenzie — Information, 3 Jun 1806
- His Majesty's Advocate v. The Honourable Mrs Maria Mackenzie of Cromertie, and Edward Hay Mackenzie, Esq. — Answers, 11 Jun 1807
- James Earl of Hopetoun v. Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, Baronet — Answers, 27 Nov 1798
- James Earl of Lauderdale v. George Inglis of Reidball — Information, 18 Dec 1764
- James Hamilton Junior v. Andrew Duncan Senior — 5 Jan 1826
- John Gillon of Wallhouse, Esq; v. The Right Honourable Walter Lord Torphichen — Information, 13 Feb 1765
- John M'Culloch v. Officers of State — Memorial, 5 Jan 1809
- John Sinclair of Freswick v. Sir John Sinclair of Mey — Information, 24 Jun 1772
- John Sinclair of Freswick v. Sir John Sinclair of Mey — Memorial, 29 Jun 1773
- John Sinclair of Freswick v. Sir John Sinclair of Mey — Memorial, 4 Feb 1773
- John Sinclair of Freswick v. Sir John Sinclair of Mey — Memorial, 8 Jul 1773
- Kirk Session of North Leith v. Robert Menzies and certain other Heritors of North Leith — Appendix, 3 Jun 1807 [2]
- Lord Chief Baron v. Mess. Welsh and Gray — Memorial, 3 Jun 1794
- Magistrates of Edinburgh v. Reverend John Hunter — Answers, 1 Jun 1831
- Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun — Petition, 16 Jan 1798
- Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts v. Sir John Scott of Ancrum, Baronet, Mr Thomas Campbell, Minister of Ancrum, Charles M'Kenzie, Writer in Edinburgh, and Mr William Brown, Minister of Bedrule — Memorial, 26 Jan 1796
- Mr James Smith of Balharrie v. Walter Ogilvy, Esq; of Clova — Respondents' Case, 1771
- Mr John Snodgrass, Preacher of the Gospel, George Steel, John Beatson, and Others v. Mr John Logan and Others — Petition, 26 Jun 1772
- No XIX. EXTRACT JUDGMENT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the CHURCH of SCOTLAND, in the Case of the Rev. John Hunter.
- Officers of State v. John M'Culloch — Memorial, 5 Jan 1809 [2]
- Officers of State v. Skene — Memorial, 26 Jan 1796
- Officers of State, Colin M'Kenzie of Glack, and Dr Anderson Seton of Mounie v. Andrew Skene of Dyce, and John Elmslie of Fingask — Memorial, 19 Jan 1796
- Paisley v. David Erskine — Information, 27 Jun 1770
- Paisley v. David Erskine — Petition, 19 Jul 1770
- Patrick Cunningham v. The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh — memorial, 27 Nov 1800
- Patrick Cunningham v. The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh — Memorial, 27 Nov 1800
- Petition and Complaint — & Comp. W. Macdowall, Esq; against Thomas Brisbane, Esq; Fred
- Petition — Additional, 21 Apr 1796
- Petition — Archibald Earl of Eglintoune
- Petition — Magistrates of Irvine against Lord Polkemmet's Interlocutor
- Petition — Provost of Peebles against Lord Balmuto's Interlocutor
- Petition — Sir John Sinclair of Mey, Baronet [2]
- Petition — Sir John Sinclair of Mey, Baronet [3]
- Petition — The Magistrates of Gorbals against Lord Balgray's Interlocutor
- Portmoak — Petition, 3 Feb 1795
- Presbytery of Paisley v. David Erskine — Answers, 6 Aug 1770
- Presbytery of Paisley v. David Erskine — Information, 28 Jun 1770
- Reverend James Smith v. Archibald Galbraith — Condescendence, 3 Jun 1836
- REVISED CONDESCENDENCE FOR DAVID SCOTT, Farmer at Northfield, Treasurer to the FRIENDLY Society of RESTALRIG, and for Dr. GEORGE WOOD, Surgeon in Edinburgh; ALEXANDER BURNETT, resi
- Right Honourable the Earl of Airlie and Honourable Donald Ogilvy of Clova v. Reverend William Ogilvy — Condescendence
- Sir James Montgomery of Stanhope v. Ebenezer Shaw of Drumrash — Respondents' Case, 27 Apr 1826
- Sir James Montgomery v. Ebenezer Shaw — Complainers' Case, 1826 [2]
- Sir John Scott of Ancrum v. Miss Mary, &c. Stewarts of Barnhills — Memorial, 15 Nov 1796
- Sir John Scott of Ancrum v. Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills — Answers, 3 Jan 1795
- Sir John Sinclair of Mey v. John Sinclair of Freswick — Answers, 24 Apr 1773
- Sir John Sinclair of Mey, Bart. v. John Sinclair of Freswick, Esq. — Answers, 30 Dec 1773
- Sir William Maxwell of Monreith, Baronet, and other Freeholders of the County of Wigton v. James Nish of Balsarroch — Answers, 21 Jan 1807
- Smith v. Galbreath and Others — Appendix, 9 Mar 1839 [2]
- STATEMENT of FACTS for the DEFENDERS—Advocators; AND ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuers—Defenders.
- Stewarts — Petition, 2 May 1794
- The Heritors, Minister, Elders, and Kirk-Session of the Parish of South Leith v. David Scott, Dr George Wood, Alexander Burnett, and Andrew Scott — Revised Case, 22 Jan 1831
- The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of the City of Edinburgh v. Patrick Cunningham — memorial, 20 Nov 1800
- The Parish of Lentrathen v. James Smith [Church of Scotland Case] — Petition
- The Rev. J. Smith & Others v. The Proprietors of the Relief Church, Campbeltown — 2 Mar 1836
- Thomas Elliot Ogilvie v. Sir John Scott of Ancrum — Memorial, 12 Apr 1792
- Thomas Elliot Ogilvie v. Sir John Scott — Memorial, 12 Apr 1792
- Thomas Horsburgh, Thomas Aitken and Andrew Walker v. George Tod — Answers, 21 Jan 1815
- Thomas Lord Dundas v. Thomas Scott — Memorial, 24 May 1796
- Thomas Scott v. Thomas Lord Dundas — Memorial, 1 Mar 1796
- Walter Lord Torphichen v. John Gillon of Walbouse — Information, 16 Jan 1765
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Memorial, 1 Dec 1792 [2]
- William Anderson v. John Izat — Information, 31 Jul 1781
- William Earl of Glencairn and William Paterson v. Magistrates and Town Council of Kilmarnock — Information, 12 Oct 1768
- William Earl of Glencairn v. The Magistrates and Town Council of Kilmarnock — Information, 16 Jun 1767
- William M'Douall v. The Synod of Galloway — Respondents' Case, 1756
