In 1836 Dr Duncan contracted a second marriage with the widow of the
Reverend Robert Lundie of Kelso. Her daughter, before this, had been
united to Dr Duncan's second son; the marriage was thus a double union
of affection and family ties. Sir David Brewster speaks of Mrs Lundie as
being "one of the most charming and intelligent women I ever knew." She
was a well-educated, clever woman, and remarkable for her determination
of character. Dr Chalmers tells a characteristic story about her in his
diary. On visiting the manse at Kelso, in her first husband's lifetime,
he found her Httle daughter of nine years old suffering from a spinal
complaint. The mother was sitting with the child in her arms and had
remained in that same position for nearly seven months, except for one
hour out of the twenty-four. "The position," he adds, "was one which
nobody understood but her mother, or which she would only maintain in
her mother's arms. ... I certainly was much impressed by her Christian
feeling and fortitude."
At the time of their marriage the Church
of Scotland was going through that fight for spiritual freedom which
culminated in the Disruption of '43. Dr Duncan had attached himself with
zeal to the reforming party, and was to be found standing in the front
rank of those who defended the independence of their Church. It is a
long and complicated story, but, before proceeding with the part he
took, it will be necessary to point out briefly the reason which
impelled so large a portion of the ministers of the Church of Scotland
to leave the Establishment. The real question at issue was the right of
the people to elect their own ministers. The Ten Years' Conflict was
simply a new phase of an old question—should the Church be compelled to
ask the State for leave to pass measures involving her spiritual
well-being, or should she be free and untrammelled to obey her Divine
Head? Briefly the whole dispute was one of resistance to State
interference. Mrs Oliphant, in her Life of Dr Chalmers, the leader of
the Evangelical and Reforming party, explains the matter so shortly and
concisely that I cannot do better than to quote her words: "In England
the secular authority is the final judge in ecclesiastical matters, and
the Anglican hierarchy has never claimed to rule its own sphere with the
independence of the Presbyterians, but that independence has always been
one of the most precious possessions of the Church of Scotland, sealed
and secured by jealous stipulations ever since the union of the two
Crowns." Lay patronage had been done away with at the Revolution
Settlement. In the reign of Queen Anne, an Act was passed restoring
patronage, an Act which was unanimously objected to by the Church.
Political reasons were supposed to have had much to do with it; were the
aristocracy to be rendered more powerful and the ministers more
dependent, Jacobite interests would be advanced. This retrograde step
soon became the cause of strife and trouble in the Church, and dissent
made rapid progress. In the religious revival, which marked the closing
years of the eighteenth century, the Evangelical party, as it was
called, once again took the lead in the General Assembly, the
ecclesiastical Parliament, so to speak, of Scotland. The Moderate party,
which had long been in the majority, became in 1834 the minority. The
Evangelical party, now in the ascendant, passed what was- known as the
Veto Act, or the Act on Calls, which laid down that, "It is a
fundamental law of this Church that no pastor shall be intruded on any
congregation contrary to the will of the people." The non-intrusion
party consisted of those who supported the veto, those in opposition
upholding the rights of the patron. A party had at one time prevailed in
the Church Courts, which did not trouble much about the Reformation
principle, and though they did not go so far as actually to propose to
do away with the call, it had been allowed to become, in many instances,
almost a dead letter. A call was sustained if signed by an infinitesimal
portion of the congregation : in consequence the presentation of the
patron generally prevailed'. It was usually possible to find a few
persons in favour of the presentee. As early as 1827 Mr Brougham had
written to Dr Duncan asking for his views on the subject of patronage.
Patronage was not then the burning question of ecclesiastical politics
which it was soon to become. Nevertheless, as is evident from Mr
Brougham's action, it was already attracting the attention of the
Government.
Raby, October 1827.
My Dear
Sir,—Yesterday a letter came under cover to me for you and one for
Andrew Thomson, which I desired my brother to frank and forward by this
dispatch. My great regret at the unlucky accident which prevented our
meeting is increased by the reflection that there are some subjects of
discussion which it is really very essential we should come to an
understanding upon, especially Kirk-patronage, because it is necessary
to put the Government in a right train, and I had reckoned upon Dr
Andrew Thomson and us having it all talked over at Brougham Hall. I must
now beg you to prevail on him to put his ideas in writing, and do the
same yourself, as our chance of meeting at Christmas is too small to
justify delay.—Yours ever truly,
H. Brougham.
Dr
Duncan was very glad of the opportunity of stating his views in so
influential a quarter. As I have already given a brief sketch of the
differences existing between Church and State it is unnecessary to
insert his letter at length. The case for the Evangelical party was
stated with clearness and precision. He mentions as an instance of the
evils of State interference the case of the late Queen Caroline. "I need
only remind you," he says, "of the ferment recently occasioned in
Scotland by the political blunder committed during the unhappy dispute
about the late Queen Caroline, in the proclamation prescribing to us a
particular form of prayer for the Royal Family. This proclamation was
universally condemned in Scotland, and almost universally disobeyed, on
the high principle that the Throne was assuming a power which did not
belong to it, in a matter which was justly held to be purely
ecclesiastical. . . . Government could not do anything more grateful' to
our Scottish population—so far as the Church is concerned—than by
showing a scrupulous regard to this principle." He goes on to criticize
the Crown's right of presentation in Scotland, and says, "The manner,
however, in which that right has hitherto been exercised, I must be
permitted to say, has had a tendency to degrade the clergy, and to
alienate the minds of a people peculiarly alive to everything connected
with religion."
Mr Brougham forwarded the letter to Lord Lansdowne,
then Home Secretary, who, as Lord Henry Petty, had been a friend of Dr
Duncan in Edinburgh days, that he might "carefully peruse and study it
whilst in the country." Five years later, in 1832, the correspondence
re-opened. Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor as he then was, wrote to
Dr Duncan as follows:—'
Mem., 1832.
"I wish you would
draw up your own ideas of the best way to make the Crown Church
patronage (in Scotland) available for checking the clamour against the
Establishment. Suppose a rule were laid down, and most strictly acted
upon, that the Crown nominee should be presented in the first instance
to a vestry composed of the existing Kirk-Session (chosen, no doubt,
very substantially by the last incumbent), and an equal number of others
freely elected by all the male communicants of the parish at a meeting
to be called on a month's notice. That this vestry should be allowed to
accept, or reject, the nominee. But that, if they rejected, they should
appoint two of their number to support their objection, before the next
meeting of the presbytery, whose decision should be final, unless they
(the presbytery) sustained the objection to more than two successive
nominees, and then that an appeal should be to the Synod. Don't omit the
conciliation suggested, when we discussed the question at Brougham, in
the hardship of sending a rejected nominee out, as it were, stigmatized.
Also consider another difficulty, the nominee has either preached before
the people or he has not. If he has not, they, and the vestry, have no
means of judging, and will object to anyone till a person they have
heard is named, which is giving them more than a veto. If he has, then
you must run the risk of men bidding against each other in doctrine to
suit the taste of those they ought to lead, not follow, and also of
making the pulpit a place of canvassing by display and appeals to the
passions." Dr Duncan replied to the Lord Chancellor at length. After
tracing the history of the various phases through which the Church had
passed he concluded by advocating a return to the Revolution Settlement.
The selection of a minister, he contended, must be vested in the
heritors and elders of the parish who were to nominate one or, if they
preferred it, two candidates to the Crown for presentation. The validity
of this presentation would, however, require to be confirmed by the call
being subscribed to by a majority of the heads of families, the Crown
still retaining the right, should the people reject two successive
presentees, of appointing a third whose induction could not be barred by
the absence of a call without other sufficient reasons. In answer to
this letter Lord Brougham again wrote on November 27th, 1832, saying: "
I cannot quite say that I go along with you, and I think the
difficulties in the way of so entire an abandonment of Crown patronage
are not to be surmounted."
In consequence of Lord Brougham's views Dr
Duncan modified his demands and adopted the principle of the Veto in a
form very similar to the one embodied in the Act of 1834, which has
already been mentioned.
The Assembly of 1834 will long be remembered
as having passed this Veto Act— an Act that gave the people the right to
veto the appointment to their parish of any minister that was
distasteful to them. This Act was passed by the Church in the full
assurance that they were acting within their legal right, the right that
the Church of Scotland had always cherished to uphold its spiritual
independence, and to acknowledge only the Divine Head. The Veto Act,
which it was hoped was going to solve all difficulties, was, in effect,
the first of a series of events which culminated in the Disruption of
'43. The principal provisions were as follows: The General Assembly ...
do declare that it is a fundamental law of this Church, that no pastor
shall be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people
. . . that if the major part of the male heads of families, members of
the vacant congregation shall disapprove of the person in whose favour
the call is proposed to be moderated in, such disapproval shall be
deemed sufficient ground for the presbytery rejecting such person, and
that he shall be rejected accordingly." . . . From the legal lips of
Lord Brougham came the following approval: " The late proceedings in the
General Assembly (viz., by passing the Veto Law) have done more to
facilitate the adoption of measures which shall set that important
question at rest upon a footing advantageous to the community, and that
shall be safe and beneficial, than any other course that could have been
taken." The formal contest began in the month of August 1834, when the
parish of Auchterarder in Perthshire became vacant. The patron, Lord
KinnouU, presented the living to a certain Mr Robert Young. Very little
appears to have been known about him, except that for some reason his
appointment was distasteful to the people. In a parish containing three
thousand inhabitants, only two persons were found to be in favour of Mr
Young, whilst two hundred and eighty-seven qualified persons were
against his presentation. The Church, thereupon, decided that the
Ordination could not be proceeded with, and they requested Lord Kinnoull
to make another appointment. The patron and Mr Young resolved to take
the case to the Civil Courts; the verdict was adverse to the Church; the
legality of the Veto Law was denied, and the decision was upheld by the
House of Lords. It was while these events were taking place that Dr
Duncan was elected Moderator of the Church, the highest Ecclesiastical
position in Scotland. This took place in the highly critical year 1839,
the year in which the famous Strathbogie case was impending, " the most
flagrant and astounding act of intrusion that Scotland ever witnessed."
Dr Duncan made it clear that there would be no turning back from the
position taken up by the Church—the nonintrusion principle was to be
upheld—no decision of the Court of Session, nor of even a higher power,
should make the Church subordinate to the civil powers. Dr Chalmers said
in 1840: "The Church of Scotland can never give way and will sooner give
up the Establishment." The Evangelical party were naturally reluctant to
take such a serious step as to sever themselves completely from the
State. Whilst negotiations were in progress with the Whig Government,
Lord Aberdeen, a member of the opposition in the House of Lords, brought
in a Bill which served only to widen the breach, and was in consequence
withdrawn. The Duke of Argyll introduced a Bill, which would have
satisfied the Church, but failed to meet with the approval of the Peers.
What was to be done? Was there no way in which the conflicting powers of
Church and State could be reconciled ? The complications and legal
proceedings that followed could not be indefinitely prolonged. The
Assembly of '42 brought the matter to a final issue by the Claim of
Right, that is to say, they determined to uphold those privileges, which
they asserted the State had assailed, and which they maintained were
part of the Ancient Constitution of Church and State in Scotland. It was
obvious that the Church was hastening on to seek, apart from the State,
the freedom she desired. The Government seemed to doubt the seriousness
of the situation, and evidently did not anticipate the grave events that
followed. The final crisis was the decision of the Upper House i in the
second Auchterarder Case, and the reply of the Government to the Claim
of Right was also given in terms adverse to the position taken up by the
Church. Dr Duncan had foreseen that this dead-lock between the
Ecclesiastical and Civil powers would come about, and as early as 1841
had felt that some great event was impending. He wrote to his eldest son
to say, "My only fear arises from the danger of defection in our own
ranks, and I am afraid that the terror of losing their livings would
operate on many to induce them, in the hour of trial, to desert their
principles. I hope none of my children will show the white feather,
indeed I know they will not." The thought seemed to call forth the whole
of his fighting strength and to renew his activity. Although his hair
had grown white and his figure was bent, the clock seemed to have been
put back to his youth as far as his spirit and mental activity went. On
18th of May 1843, between four and five hundred ministers left their
manses. Dr Duncan, his two sons, and his son-in-law—all ministers of the
Church—joined the Free Church of Scotland.
It was a memorable day; the
streets of Edinburgh were crowded and business was suspended; large
anxious crowds had assembled in the streets, and there was a feeling of
intense excitement manifested everywhere. No sooner were the doors of St
Andrew's Church opened than every available space was filled. In the
Throne Room at Holyrood, where the Lord High Commissioner was holding
his Court, the portrait of King William III. fell to the ground. "There
goes the Revolution Settlement," said a voice in the crowd— an ominous
incident. At St Andrew's Church the Lord High Commissioner was announced
and was received by the entire assemblage standing. Prayers were offered
up. Dr Welsh, the Moderator, rose after the first moment, when the
excitement of the audience was nearly at breaking point; silence
prevailed. " Fathers and brethren, according to the usual form of
procedure, this is the time for making up the roll, but in consequence
of certain proceedings affecting our rights and privileges— proceedings
which have been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government, and by the
Legislature of the Country—and more especially in respect that there has
been an infringement on the liberties of our Constitution, so that we
could not now constitute this Court without a violation of the terms of
the union between Church and State in this land, as now authoritatively
declared, I must protest against our proceeding further. The reasons
that have led me to come to this conclusion are fully set forth in this
document which I hold in my hand, and which, with the permission of the
House, I will now proceed to read." The memorable document followed. The
wrongs of the Church were clearly explained, and their enumeration
concluded with these words. "We are not responsible for any consequences
that may follow from this our enforced separation from an Establishment,
which we loved and prized, through interference with conscience, the
dishonour done to Christ's Crown, and the rejection of His sole and
supreme authority as King in His Church." Dr Welsh laid the protest on
the table, and, bowing low to the High Commissioner, left the chair and
proceeded to the door, followed closely by Dr Chalmers. For one moment a
loud cheer broke from the galleries which quickly died away, and amidst
an impressive silence man after man left his seat and joined the long
procession that poured forth into the crowded street. The great
self-sacrificing act was done. Many of the men who left St Andrew's
Church that day were homeless. The Church had surrendered voluntarily
the advantage of a State Establishment in order to secure spiritual
freedom. No flesh pots in the way of endowments of secular privileges
stood in the path of these devoted disinterested men. Buchanan says, in
his Ten Years' Conflict: "As surely as that Providence is not a game of
chance—as certainly as that God is in history—the Disruption of the
Church of Scotland carries in it a message from the Eternal." |