The English dominated Union Parliament, in its early legislation, restored the ?Ancient Patronages?, whereby a particular landlord in each parish had the right to present a minister for induction in the event of a parish vacancy. At the General Assembly there was a great deal of opposition to the return of this Act, but the Parliament chose to ignore the views of the Kirk and the seeds of dissention were sown. This engendered strife that lasted the next hundred years, and resulted in the Disruption in 1843. The Parish of Torphichen, then in the Presbytery of Linlithgow, having become vacant, the Patron, Lord Torphichen, named a leet of five and asked the parishioners to choose one of them. Some of the parishioners, however, had their attention drawn favourably towards Mr. James Turnbull, a probationer, and they petitioned the Presbytery to add his name to the patron?s leet. The Presbytery, however, by a majority, declined to do this. When the call was ?moderated?, twenty-four Heritors, (Heritors were local land and property owners), voted for Mr. James Watson, one of the gentlemen named on the leet; two of the heritors voted for Mr. Gilmour, another of those named. The remainder of the heritors did not vote at all, and very few of the other members were in favour of any of those named on the leet. The Presbytery was staggered at what had happened and how few communicants had signed Mr. Watson?s call and referred the case to Synod. The Synod, on finding that there was no positive opposition, and that the more ?intelligent? portion of the Parish had called Mr. Watson, (and probably also having become aware that the silence of the remainder arose from Mr. Turbull?s name not being placed on the leet), ordered the Presbytery to proceed with the trials. An appeal was taken to the General Assembly, which sustained the findings of Synod. Mr. Watson was accordingly taken on trial. Thus began a very long conflict. Space will not permit the whole picture of the following events but it is sufficient to note that the Parish objected strongly to having Mr. Watson imposed on them. In their petition they stated that "He could not be heard in the Church, and that they could never submit to his Ministry, in regard he had accepted of a presentation without the consent and concurrence of almost the whole Parish. It should be remembered that, at that time, the Kirk was still the old Preceptory nave and the pulpit would then be sited at the north wall. The former nave was very much longer than the present Kirk and it would have been more difficult for a voice to carry from the pulpit. The case continued through the courts of Presbytery, Synod and the General Assembly for a further three years. When Presbytery sent one of its number to Conduct Public Worship and read the edict for Mr. Watson?s induction, no more than five or six members were present to worship with him. At the 1751 Assembly, it was proposed that the Linlithgow Presbytery be rebuked at the bar and they should be enjoined to proceed with the settlement of Mr. Watson, along with a committee of the Assembly, who would be empowered to act by themselves in case Presbytery did not appear. When the proposal for censure had been made and seconded, the Minister for Athelstaneford, East Lothian rose, (he was John Hume, who is well known as the author of the tragedy, "Douglas"), he pointed out that censure was not enough. He moved suspension of Presbytery. Hume was seconded by his friend William Robertson, minister of Gladmuir, East Lothian, who was also a writer, later Moderator of the General Assembly, founder of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Principal of Edinburgh University, amongst many other things. The motion was lost but Home and Robertson, together with a Hugh Blair, formed the "Riding Committees" which were employed to finalise the settlement. It is interesting to note that this was the last of the "Riding Committees." On 30th May, the Committee met in Torphichen Kirk with the purpose of ordaining and inducting Mr. James Watson as minister of the Parish. Presbytery was not present, neither was the Kirk Session nor the congregation. Mr. Watson was received in Presbytery with great reluctance. Thus ended an unfortunate chapter in the history of Torphichen Kirk. In the autumn of 1759, Lord Torphichen offered Watson a charge at Mid Calder, to which he translated.

The Rebuilding of the Kirk