25528937-1

7/25/2019 25528937-1

1/33

Edinburgh University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Scottish Historical

Review.

http://www.jstor.org

dinburgh University Press

The Disruption and British Politics 1834-43Author(s): G. I. T. MachinSource: The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 51, No. 151, Part 1 (Apr., 1972), pp. 20-51Published by: Edinburgh University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25528937

Accessed: 28-10-2015 20:13 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:13:43 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=euphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25528937http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25528937http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=euphttp://www.jstor.org/

7/25/2019 25528937-1

2/33

G. I. T. MAGHIN

The

Disruption

and

British

politics

1834-43

The

Disruption

of

1843

was

a

peculiarly

Scottish

event

which

had

little

similarity

to

ecclesiastical

developments

in

the

rest

of

the

United

Kingdom.

Like the

tractarians

of

the

contemporary

Oxford

movement,

the

Scottish non-intrusionists?who

left

the

Kirk

in

1843

because

they

rejected

lay

interference

in

spiritual

concerns?

wished

to

reform

their

church from

within

and

to assert

its

spiritual

independence

from

civil

authority.

But

the

tractarians

developed

mainly as a doctrinal movement, whereas the non-intrusionists had

comparatively

little

theological quarrel

with their

opponents

in

the

Church

of

Scotland,

the

Moderates,

and wished

to

be rid of

civil control because

it

hindered

their

schemes

for

making

the

Church

a

more

popular

and

expanding

body.1

Non-intrusionists

also

bore

little resemblance

to

dissent.

In

the

1830s

and

1840s

dissenters

strongly

supported

the disestablishment

or

'voluntary

church'

movement to

free

churches

from

state

control and

support,

while non-intrusionists

clung

to

the

establishment

principle,

albeit

an

ideal

one

reformed

according

to

their

views.

Almost the

only

group

truly

sympathetic

to

non-intrusion

were

the

Wesleyans,

who

had left

an

establishment

but

still

believed

in its raison

d'etre.2

But

in

spite

of

the distinctiveness

of

the

Scottish

church

question

its

outcome

was

influenced

by

the

general

British situation

because

of the

political

union.

It would

be incorrect

to

say

that

govern

ments

refused

non-intrusionist

demands

because

Scotland

had

only

a

minority

voice

in

parliament,

because

she

was remote

from

Westminster, or because her clerical

quarrels

were

uninteresting,

unintelligible

or

distasteful

to

many

English

politicians.

Statesmen

were

not

rendered

immovable

by

the

indifference

of

most

MPs,

and

they

had

to

seek

to

understand

and

judge

objectively

even

where

they

did

not

sympathise.3

It

was

unlikely

that

Melbourne

would

i

Flashes

of

sympathy

did

occur

between

tractarians

and non-intrusionists?

even

that

crusty

evangelical-basher

Bishop Phillpotts

was

once

approvingly

quoted

by

Chalmers

in

the

general

assembly?but

doctrinal

disparity

caused

general

antipathy

(W.

Hanna,

Memoirs

of

the

Life

and

Writings of

Thomas Chalmers

[Edinburgh,

1850-2],

iv, 112, 320).

2

Correspondence

between

Chalmers

and

Jabez

Bunting

shows

genuine

sympathy.

Bunting

offered

non-intrusionists

the

support

of

the

Wesleyan

Methodist

Magazine

and

the

Watchman

(Edinburgh,

New

College,

Chalmers

Papers,

Bunting

to

Chalmers, 23

Jan.

1841).

3

Cf.

Journal

of

Henry

Cockburn,

ed.

T.

Cleghorn

(Edinburgh,

1874),

lh

36:

'It

is

the

duty

of

a

Government,

in the

immediate

presence

of

great

public

danger,

to

take

the

lead,

actively

and

decidedly,

and

to

endeavour

to

produce

that

wisdom

and

concord

which

it

does

not

find

existing.'

DRMAGHiNisa

lecturer

in modern

history

in the

university

of Dundee.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/25/2019 25528937-1

3/33

THE DISRUPTION

AND

BRITISH POLITICS

21

make

a

painstaking

study

of

the

dispute:

he

confessed

that

he

was

'practically

utterly

ignorant'

of

it,1

and his

outspoken

dislike of

Chalmers

betrayed

personal

bias.

But the

essentials

of

vetos,

calls,

libera arbitria and

quoad

sacra churches were

probably grasped by

Peel,

and

if he

were

wanting,

his

lieutenant

Lord Aberdeen

was

soaked in

the

question,

as

is testified

by

the

hundreds

of

voluminous

letters he

exchanged

with

the

Moderate

lawyer,

John

Hope.

Deeper

reasons

than

mere

apathy

explain

the

failure

of both

a

whig

and

a

conservative

government

to

offer

a

settlement

which

would have

kept

the

non-intrusionists

in

the

Church.

Primarily

the

assumptions

of both

governments

about

an

established church

were

severely tried by non-intrusionist claims. The policy of whigs and

liberal

conservatives

was one

of

reviving

the establishment

and

at

the

same

time

making

concessions

to

other

denominations.2

Desire

to

uphold

the

establishment

was

unlikely,

save

under

a

threat of

great

upheaval,

to

embrace

so

sacrificial

a

measure

as

the

non-intrusionists

demanded,

namely

the virtual

elimination of

the

state

in

spiritual

government

while

at

the

same

time

retaining

the

temporal

advantages

of establishment. The

policy

of

conciliating

dissent

also worked

against

non-intrusion.

Scottish dissenters

(or

Voluntaries

as

the advocates

of

disestablishment

were

called)

opposed

non-intrusion

because

they

feared

that it

might

succeed

in

strengthening

the

establishment,

and the

whigs

were

unwilling

to

conciliate

non-intrusion

lest

their alliance

with dissent

should

become weaker than it

was

already.

The

whigs

showed

their

hand in

1839

when

they

supported

a

judgment

against

non-intrusion

and failed

to

bring

in

remedial

legislation.

The

non-intrusionists thereafter

strengthened

their

demands,

which seemed

increasingly

anti-erastian to Moderates

and

increasingly

democratic

to

aristocrats,

and

neither

whigs

nor

conservatives

would offer

enough

to

satisfy

them.

The main

compromise

was

suggested

in

1840,

and

rejected;

stalemate

followed

with

the

government

upholding

a

compromise

and

the non-in

trusionists

insisting

on more.

The

demands did

not

come

through

strongly

enough

to

change

the

government's

view.

Non-intrusionists

had

a

majority

in the

general assembly

of the

Church,

but

in

parliamentary

elections and

popular organisation

their

voice

was

muffled

and

inconclusive;

the

government

therefore

doubted

whether

a

majority

of the Church

supported

their

claims,

and

these

doubts

i

Lord

Melbourne's

Papers,

ed.

L.

G. Sanders

(London,

1890), 416,

Melbourne

to

Lord

Dunfermline,

20

Apr.

1841.

2

For

general political

attitudes

see

Olive

Brose,

Church

and

Parliament,

1828

60

(London, 1959),

ch.

3;

G. F. A.

Best,

Temporal

Pillars

(Cambridge,

1963);

O.

Chadwick,

The

Victorian

Church,

pt.

1

(London, 1966);

N.

Gash,

Reaction

and

Reconstruction

in

English

Politics,

1832-52

(Oxford,

1965);

D.

Southgate,

The

Passing

of

the

Whigs, 1832-86 (London,

1962).


7/25/2019 25528937-1

4/33

22

G.

I.

T. MACHIN

were

intensified

by

Moderate

partisans

who said that

any

secession

would

be

a

small

one.

Government resistance continued and

at

length

came

the

Disruption,

a

larger

and

more

far-reaching

cata

clysm

than was

expected.

This article will examine the sad

story

of

the relations of non-intrusionists

with

two

successive

governments,

in

an

attempt

to

show

why

schism occurred.1

I

The

non-intrusionist

movement

began?ironically

in view

of

the

fact

that it

later

appeared

to

be

threatening

the

establishment?

as an

attempt

to

defend the Church

of Scotland

against

the

menace

of

Voluntaryism,

which

in

the

later

1820s

emerged

as a

militant

force.2

Voluntaryism

directly

attacked the

establishment,

and

never

before

had

the

Kirk

met

such

vigorous

opposition.

The

needed

response

was

readily

forthcoming.

Against

the

lethargy

of Modera

tism had arisen

the zealous

evangelicalism

of

Thomas

Chalmers,

Andrew

Thomson

and their followers who

were

bent

on

rebutting

Voluntaryism

by

making

the

Church

more

vital

and

popular.

Their

activities

included

anti-voluntary

lectures

given by

later

luminaries of non-intrusion who were themselves to be accused of

undermining

the

state

connection.3

The

evangelicals4

increased

i

My

main

MS

sources are

the Aberdeen

Papers

(British

Museum,

Add.

MSS

43039-358),

Peel

Papers (BM

Add. MSS

40181-617),

Chalmers

Papers

(Edinburgh,

New

College)

and

Dalhousie

Papers (Scottish

Record

Office,

GD

45/14).

These

are

hereafter

referred

to

as

AP, PP,

CP,

and

DP.

The

Clerk

of

Penicuik

Papers

(SRO,

GD

18),

Gladstone

Papers

(BM

Add. MSS

44088-835),

Brougham

Papers (London, University

College)

and Dundee

Presbytery

Minutes

(SRO,

CH2/103/18)

have also been used.

In

contemporary

accounts

of the

crisis

the

non-intrusionist

view

is

presented

by

R.

Buchanan,

The Ten

Tears'

Conflict

(Glasgow,

1849);

Hanna, Chalmers',

and

T.

Brown,

Annals

of

the

Disruption (Edin

burgh,

1893).

A

hard

Moderate

line

is

taken

by

J. Bryce,

Ten Tears

of

the

Church

of

Scotland

(Edinburgh,

1850)

and

a

softer

one

by

A.

Turner,

The Scottish

Secession

of

1843

(Edinburgh,

1859).

Useful

later

accounts

are

in

G.

W.

T.

Omond,

The Lord

Advocates

of

Scotland,

2nd

ser.,

1834-80

(London, 1914);

W.

L.

Mathieson,

Church

and

Reform

in

Scotland,

1797-1843 (Glasgow,

1916); Hugh

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers

and

the

Disruption

(Edinburgh,

1943);

G.

D.

Henderson,

Heritage

(Edinburgh,

1943)

and

The

Claims

of

the

Church

of

Scotland

(London, 1951); J.

H. S.

Burleigh,

A

Church

History

of

Scotland

(Edinburgh,

i960);

and W.

Ferguson,

Scotland,

1689

to

the

Present

(Edinburgh,

1968).

In

attempting

this

account of the

political

aspects

I

have

benefited from

discussion

with

special

subject

students

at

the

university

of

Dundee,

and must thank Professor D. F. Macdonald for his

helpful

comments on

the

paper.

2

For

the

development

of

Voluntaryism

see

A. B.

Montgomery,

'The

Vol

untary Controversy

in the

Church

of

Scotland,

1829-43',

Ph.D. thesis

(Edinburgh

University,

1953),

a

valuable

study

of

a

subject

on

which

little has been written.

See

also

Burleigh,

Church

History,

323-4

and

J.

B.

Mackie,

The

Life

and Work

of

Duncan

McLaren

(London,

1888),

i,

170

ff.

3 Montgomery,

'Voluntary

Controversy',

55

ff.

4

The

evangelicals

were not

exactly

co-terminous

with

non-intrusionists;

most

evangelicals

became

non-intrusionists

but

some

accepted

modified

lay

patronage

and remained

in the Church of Scotland

after

the

Disruption.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

5/33

THE

DISRUPTION

AND BRITISH

POLITICS

23

their

representation

in the

general

assembly

while that

of the

Moderates

declined;

by

1834

the former

had

a

majority

and

kept

it

until the

Disruption.

In the

same

year

Chalmers

launched

a cam

paign

for

state

endowment

of

new

churches which

was

bitterly

opposed by

Voluntaries,

and the Voluntaries

largely

had their

way

with the

government

for

satisfactory

endowments

were

not

granted. Evangelicals

also

promoted

church extension

by building,

within

existing parishes, chapels-of-ease

or

quoad

sacra

churches,

and

in order

to

give

their

ministers similar

rights

to

those

of the

parish

ministers

the

1834 assembly

passed

the

Chapels

Act.1

This

measure

was

disliked

not

only by

Voluntaries

but

also

by

Moderates,

who rightly thought it would increase evangelical strength in the

ecclesiastical

courts

such

as

presbyteries,

synods

and

general assembly

which

controlled

the

spiritual

life of

the

Church;

and the

act

was

later

repudiated

by

the

court

of

session,

the

chief civil

court.

Evangelicals

further

wanted

to remove

abuses

which,

they

were

convinced,

restricted the

popularity

of

the

Church;

and in

this

connection

they

claimed

the

Church's

right

to

make

decisions

on

spiritual

government

independently

of

the

state.

The

chief

object

of

reform

was

the

system

of

lay patronage,

abolished in

1690

but

restored

by

an

act

of

1712,

according

to

which

a

candidate

presented

by

the

patron

to

a

parish

had

to

be

accepted

as

minister

provided

the

presbytery

was

satisfied with

regard

to

his

'life,

literature

and

manners'

[i.e. morals],

and the

opinion

of

the

congregation

was

practically

immaterial.2

This

meant

that ministers

were

sometimes

'intruded'

on

unwilling parishes.

The

matter

had

long

been

a

grievance;

it

had caused

secessions in

1733

and

1752,

and

by

some

it

was

considered

a

betrayal

of

the

Union.3

The non-intrusionists wished to

modify

the law of

patronage

so

that

congregational

reaction

to

a

presentee

might

be

expressed;

if

disapproval

were

strong enough

a

presentee

should

be

rejected

and

a

more

acceptable

candidate found. In this

intention,

resistance

to

Voluntaryism

was

again

clearly

seen.

At the

1833

general

assembly

it

was

said that

'nothing

.

. .

will

disappoint

them

[i.e.

the Voluntar

ies]

more

than

the

adoption

of

a measure

to

prevent

effectually

the

intrusion

of ministers

into

parishes'.4

'John

Knox the

Younger's'

First Blast of the Trumpet against theMonstrous Usurpations of Church

Patrons in

Scotland announced

that

'the violent

tempest

which

.

. .

i

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears1

Conflict,

i,

317

ff.

2

The

crown

was

patron

of about

a

third

of the

parishes;

in

the

remainder

patronage

was

usually

held

by

a

local

landowner.

3

For

a

summary

of

the earlier

phases

of

the

dispute

see

Henderson,

Claims,

102-5.

4

Montgomery,

'Voluntary

Controversy',

132.

See also

Speeches

at

a

Glasgow

public

meeting,

31

Jan.

&

1

Feb.

1833

(Glasgow,

1833),

6

ff.;

and

Brougham

Papers,

43044,

Rev.

Henry

Duncan

to

Brougham,

5

Dec.

1832.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

6/33

24

G. I. T. MACHIN

threatens

to

ingulph

us

in

the

boiling

waves

of

infidel

rage

and

sectarian

frenzy

>

loudly

proclaims

that

the entire abolition

of

lay-patronage

has become

our

sheet-anchor'.1

Most

non-intrusionists, however,

would

at this

point

have been satisfied with less than the

complete

abolition

of

patronage.

The

Veto

Act

which

was

passed

by

the

1834

assembly

declared

that 'the

dissent

of

a

majority

of

the male

heads of

families,

being

members

of

the

congregation

and

in full

communion with the

church,

ought

to

be of

conclusive effect

in

setting

aside the

presentee',

and

no reasons

need be

given

for the dissent.2 This

was

quite

enough

to

alarm

the

Moderates who

thought

that

a

congregational

veto

without stated

reasons

could

produce

biased,

uninformed and

irresponsible decisions on the worth of a minister.3 And so there

commenced

a

conflict

within

the Church which led

to

schism

and

amidst whose

cacophony

the

dispute

with

Voluntaryism

played

second

fiddle,

though

it

was

by

no

means

rendered

in

audible.4

The

Veto Act

was

to

raise

thorny

questions

about the

right

of

the

Church

to

decide the

patronage

issue

independently

of the

civil

courts,

but

it

aroused little

controversy

until it

was

put

to

the

test.

To historians

of the Church of Scotland

the

years

1834-9

are

a

golden period

when

unity

over

many

matters

prevailed

and

im

mense

material

and

spiritual

progress

was

achieved.5

In

politics,

non-intrusionist

support

for the

state

connection

blurred the issue

until

a

direct conflict

over

patronage

occurred;

non-intrusionists

were

firm

establishment

men

despite

their wish for

reform,

and

government

could

meet

them

on

establishment

ground

despite

having

to

take

account

of the

Voluntary

position.

Such

early

attention

as

non-intrusion

did

receive,

however,

did

not

promise

a

warm political reception. Nothing was done about the report of a

select

committee

on

patronage

which

was

vaguely

in favour

of

changing

the

law6;

and

motions

in

1835

DY

Andrew

Johnston

(MP

for

the St Andrews

burghs)

for the

modification

of

patronage

received

little attention

or

support.7

In

February

1834

Peel stated

his

opposition

to

the

alteration

of

patronage.8

i

Edinburgh, 1833,

iv.

2

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

i,

289

ff.

3

Bryce,

Ten

Tears, i,

21-42.

4

Political

rivalry

between

Voluntaries

and

non-intrusionists

was

later

great

enough

for Moderates to

regard

Voluntaries as

potential

allies

against

non

intrusionists

(see

below,

p.

32).

In

1843

the Free

Church

adhered

to

the establish

ment

principle

and

was

for

a

long

period

in

conflict

with Voluntaries

on

this

point.

5

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers, 152-3:

'At

no

period

in its

previous

history

had

it

displayed

such

energy

and sacrifice

for the

evangelization

of

the nation

and of the

world.'

6

Hansard's

Parliamentary

Debates,

xxi,

926-40

(all

references

are

to

the

third

series);

Report

from

Select Committee

on

Church

Patronage

in

Scotland,

Parliamentary

Papers,

1834

(512),

v,

pp.

iii-iv.

7

Hansard,

xxviii,

882-6; xxix,

412-17.

8

Ibid.,

xxi,

934-5.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

7/33

THE

DISRUPTION

AND BRITISH

POLITICS

25

The

eruption

of the classic

Auchterarder

case

in

1834

transformed

preliminary

skirmishing

into

a

serious

dispute.

In

this

case

rejection

by

the

presbytery

in accordance

with the Veto Act caused the

disappointed

presentee,

Robert

Young,

to

appeal

to the court of

session.

In

March

1838

the

court

declared,

by

a

majority

of

eight

judges

to

five,

in

favour

of

Young

and

against

the

Veto Act.1 The

assembly

of

1838

replied

with

a

resolution

that 'in

all

matters

touching

the

doctrine,

government

and

discipline

of

the

Church,

her

judicatories

possess

an

exclusive

jurisdiction,

founded

on

the

Word

of

God5,2

and

appealed

against

the

offending

judgment

to

a

higher

court,

the

house

of lords.

The

lords'judgment,

given

on

4

May

1839,

upheld that of the court of session. The statements of whig lawyers

on

the

case

were

not

conciliatory.

Cottenham,

the

current

lord

chancellor,

and

Brougham,

a

former

one,

said

that

the law

did

not

embrace

a

congregational

call

or

veto,

and

Brougham

said

later

that 'he had

never seen

such

a

clear

case.

It

seemed

to

be all

one

way.'3

Whig

opinion

was

echoed

by

conservative: Aberdeen told

John Hope,

dean of

the

faculty

of

advocates and

counsel

for Robert

Young,

that

'if.

.

.

the

Assembly

should

resist

the decision

of

the

House

of

Lords,

they

must

bid

adieu

to

additional

endowments,

and

in

fact

they

would

go

far

to

sever

their

connection

with

the

State'.4

The

non-intrusionists

rejected

the

decision.

Although

Chalmers

did

not

finally

adhere

to

the

veto

until

considerably

later,

he

was

driven

by

the lords'

verdict

to

re-affirm the

Veto Act

at

the

1839

general assembly.5

Views

contained in

his

influential

London

lectures of

the

previous

year

were

repeated

more

strongly

at

this

assembly:

'we

are

never,

in

any

instance,

to

depart

from

the

ob

ligations which lie upon us as a Christian Church, for the sake

either

of

obtaining

or

perpetuating

the

privileges

which

belong

to

us as an

Established

Church.'6

There

was

here

a

veiled

threat

of

secession,

which

was

put

in

plainer

language

to

Sir

James

Graham:

'rather

than be

placed

at

the

feet of

an

absolute

and

uncontrolled

patronage

. .

.

very

many

of

our

clergy

.

.

.

are

resolved

to

quit

the

Establishment and

.

.

.

leave

it

a

prey

for the

Radicals,

and

Voluntaries,

and

demi-infidels

.

.

.

who

are

bent

upon

destroying

it.'7

i

Omond,

Lord

Advocates, 54

fF. For

the

Auchterarder

case

in

detail

see

also

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers,

157 ff.;

Buchanan,

Ten

Years'

Conflict,

i,

398-491;

ii,

1-15;

Bryce,

Ten

Tears,

i,

42-72.

2

Buchanan,

Ten Tears'

Conflict,

i,

478-9.

3 Hanna,

Chalmers,

iv,

96

ff.;

Hansard,

1,

374.

4

AP, 43202,

fo.

180,

13

June

1838.

5

Hanna,

Chalmers, iv,

115.

6

Ibid.,

iv, 109.

7

Chalmers

to

Graham,

6

June

1839,

in

C.

S.

Parker,

Life

and

Letters

of

Sir

James

Graham,

Bt

(London,

1907),

i,

373-4.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

8/33

26

G.

I. T.

MACHIN

The

conflicting

standpoints

of

non-intrusionists

and Moderates

were

soon

being expressed

through

public

channels,

and

it

could

well be

said

that 'the

Church

question

is

growing

like

a

tropical

turnip'.1

Among

further

causes

celebres

which had arisen

over

the

veto

the

Marnoch

case

was

outstanding

for

its

serpentine

course

and

aggravating

effects

on

the

controversy.

When

a

call

to

the

presentee,

Mr

John

Edwards,

was

signed

only by

the

village

inn

keeper (a

fact

which

was

enough

to

secure

notoriety

for the

case)

and the

great

majority

of the male

heads

of families

dissented,

the

presbytery

of

Strathbogie

divided

over

whether

to

apply

the

pro

cedure

of

the Veto

Act,

seven

ministers

being against

this

course

and four in favour. The assembly of 1838 ordered the presbytery

to

enforce the

act

and the

presbytery initially

obeyed.

Edwards,

however,

successfully

appealed

to

the

court

of

session,

whereupon

the

presbytery

somersaulted

and decided

to

take him

on

trials.

A

new

issue

was

thus

added

to

the

quarrel?could presbyteries

defy

their

superior

court,

the

general assembly,

and defer

instead

to

the

civil

authority

? This

question exposed

the

very

heart

of

the

dispute

over

conflicting jurisdictions.

A

commission of

assembly

decided

that

the

seven

ministers who

were

the

majority

should be

temporar

ily

suspended

from office for

their

disobedience,

and

the

1840

assembly

decided

to

continue

the

suspension.

But

the

court

of

session

held

the

suspension

to

be

invalid,

whereupon

the

seven

ministers

resumed their

functions

and

said

they

could

not

recognise

the

proceedings

of

the

commission of

assembly.

Further,

on

a

new

action

by

Mr

Edwards

the

seven

ministers

proceeded

to

ordain

and

induct him in

a scene

of

dramatic

congregational

opposition,

in

January

1841.2

The

Moderates

led

by

Dr

Cook

held

that

the

ministers had done

right

to

obey

the

'supreme

tribunals' of the

country,

but

to

non-intrusionists

an

ordination

performed

by

sus

pended

ministers

was an

almost

sacrilegious example

of the

tyranny

of civil

courts.3

i

DP,

646,

Patrick

Stewart,

MP

for

Renfrewshire,

to

Fox

Maule,

9

Jan.

1840.

The

Moderate

case

was

expounded,

and

rather

spoiled,

in

a

290-page

pamphlet

by

John

Hope,

A

Letter

to

the Lord Chancellor

on

the

Claims

of

the

Church

of

Scotland

(London,

1839).

Hope's

friends,

like

readers

of

a

later

age,

had

difficulty

in

getting

through it: Aberdeen told him 'it is too long', that Melbourne would never

read

it,

and

that

it

was

doubtful whether

even

the

lord chancellor would

do

so

(AP,

43202,

fo.

249,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

1

Oct.

1839).

A non-intrusionist

pam

phlet

in

reply,

A.

Murray

Dunlop's

An

Answer

to

the Dean

of Faculty's

Letter

(Edin

burgh,

1839), apparently

sought

to

match

Hope

in

length

as

well

as

in

argument.

2

Brown, Annals,

23-24; Hanna,

Chalmers,

iv,

214-19.

3

The Moderate view

was

expressed

by

Dr

George

Cook

to

Brougham,

6

June

1840

(Brougham

Papers,

33509).

For the

whole

case

in

detail

see

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers,

206-21;

Buchanan,

Ten Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

passim; Bryce,

Ten

Tears,

i,

101-59,

195-217;

ii? 53-172.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

9/33

THE DISRUPTION

AND

BRITISH POLITICS

2j

II

The Marnoch

labyrinth

increased

non-intrusionist

pressure

for

a

parliamentary

settlement of the claims. 'It is

absolutely

necessary

that there should

be

legislative

interference',

wrote

Lord

Advocate

Rutherfurd after

the

suspension

of the

seven

ministers.1

Marnoch

also affected the

kind of

legislation

which non-intrusionists

would

accept.

Because the

case

showed

what

a

Moderate

presbytery

might

do,

non-intrusionists

were

reluctant

to

accept

the

compromise

which

was

shortly

offered,

that

presbyteries

should

judge

the

validity

of

popular

objections

to

a

presentee.

In

seeking

a

parliamentary

solution it became clear that while there was little to choose be

tween

the

two

political parties

as

regards

sympathy

for

non-intrusion,

rather

more

hope

could

be

placed

in

the

conservatives than

the

liberals.

Two

Scottish

whigs

who held

ministerial

office,

Rutherfurd

and

Fox

Maule,2

were

zealous

non-intrusionists but

they

had

no

support

from

their

party

leaders. Scottish conservatives

on

the other

hand

were

frequently

Moderates,

but

among

the

leaders

Aberdeen

was

more

conciliatory

than

the

whigs.

Chalmers,

moreover,

was a

strong conservative,

and the

fact

that

most

prominent

non-intrusion

ist ministers

were

whigs

weighed

little

against

his

importance

as

leader.3

On

political

and

especially

on

personal grounds

Chalmers

cut

no

ice with Melbourne. The latter's

remark,

in itself

irrational,

that

'I

particularly

dislike

Chalmers;

I

think him

a

madman

&

all

madmen

are

also

rogues',4

showed

that Chalmers

would find it

easier

to

negotiate

with Aberdeen. The liberal

press

in

both Scot

land

and

England

was more

hostile

to

non-intrusion than

the

conservative.5

For various reasons liberal

policy

was a

stalling

one. The

govern

ment

was

connected

with Voluntaries and

radicals

who

might

not

unjustly

be accused of

enjoying

the dilemma of the

Kirk6;

true-blue

whiggery,

whether

influenced

by

anglicanism

or

not,

disliked sub

mitting

to

clerical 'dictation'

and

the

'democracy'

of

the

veto;

and the

weak

position

of the

government

discouraged

a

firm

remedy

1

DP,

642/1,

Rutherfurd

to

Fox

Maule, 31

Dec.

1839.

2

Maule

was

then

under-secretary

for

home affairs. He

was

later

secretary

for

war, second earl of Panmure and eleventh earl of Dalhousie.

3

'Without

Dr.

G.

we

could

not

keep

our

majority

in

the

Assembly

& if

that

failed,

our

cause

wd. be

gone'

(DP, 658,

Murray

Dunlop

to

Maule, 3

Jan.

1840).

4

DP,

640,

Melbourne

to

Maule,

28

Oct.

1840.

5

Only

the

Caledonian

Mercury

in Scotland

was

named

as a

consistent

liberal

supporter

of

the

cause;

in

England

'the Times

formerly

&

the

Record

now

have

been

our

only

friends while

the

Examiner attacks

us

fiercely

&

the other

ministerial

papers

if

they

notice

our

affairs

at

all do

so

by

quoting

paragraphs

from

our

enemies'

(DP,

658, Dunlop

to

Maule, 3

Jan.

1840).

6

AP, 43202,

fo.

253,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

14

Dec.

1839.

For the

action

of

dissenters,

at

this

time

obstructing

a

settlement,

see

Omond,

Lord

Advocates,

73.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

10/33

28

G.

I. T.

MACHIN

which

would alienate

one

side

or

the

other.

'Upon general

principles',

said

Melbourne,

'I

never saw so

clear.

First,

I

do

not

know

how

I

could

reconcile

it

to

my

conscience

to

take the

part

of

any

Church

or

of

anything

ecclesiastical

anywhere,

in

opposition

to

the law

. . .

Secondly,

I

do

not

know how

I

could

. . .

agree

to

anything

which

was

to

place

the

election of

ministers

more

in

the

hands of

the

congregation

than

it is

at

present.

And,

thirdly,

even

if

the

Church

were

right

in

their

desires,

the

manner

in

which

they

have

been

asserted and

enforced

cannot

be

justified

or even

excused.'1

A

non-intrusionist

deputation

in London after

the lords' Auch

terarder

judgment

received

valuable

assurance

that

the

extensive

crown patronage would be exercised in accordance with the Veto

Act,

and

this

promise

was

consistently

fulfilled,2

but

Melbourne

assured

Brougham

that the

deputation

had

not

caused the

govern

ment to

question

the

Auchterarder

judgment

and that

they

were

not

pledged

to

bring

in

legislation.3

Thereafter

Melbourne's

statements

in

parliament

on

the

subject

displayed

a

monotonous

impassivity

which

caught

the flavour

of

the

whig ministry

in

its

last,

post

Bedchamber

stage.

On 6

February

1840

he answered Aberdeen

that

the

ministers

were

undecided;

on 2

March

he said

that such

an

important

matter

needed

'due and

mature

consideration';

and

on

16

March he confessed

that

the

government

had

no

measure

ready.4

By

this

time

non-intrusionists

had almost

despaired

of

the

govern

ment.5

Finally,

when

on

30

March

Aberdeen

said that Melbourne

had

been

supposed

to

be

considering

the

question

for

eight

months

?'not

to

be

prepared

to

say

whether he would do

something

or

do

nothing,

was

that

proper?

was

it

decent?

was

it

honest?

was

this

a

Government?',

the

premier replied

that

he

would

not

be hustled and that he was 'not

prepared

at

present

to

pledge

the

Government

to

introduce

any

measure on

this

subject'.6

The

next

day

Aberdeen

said he

would

introduce

a

measure

himself7

and the

ball

was

passed,

no

doubt

thankfully,

to

the

tories.

Conservatives

had

understandably

been reluctant

to

take

an

awkward

problem

from the

government's

shoulders.

If

some

political

support

might

be

won

from

a

successful

solution,

some

might

also

be

lost,

and

this consideration

was

important

because of

the

struggle

to change the government. The Perthshire by-election of February

i

Melbourne's

Papers, 416,

Melbourne

to

Dunfermline,

20

Apr. 1841.

2

Turner,

Scottish

Secession,

174-5;

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers,

195;

Witness, 9

June

1841.

3

Hansard,

1,373-6;

Melbourne's

Papers,

401

-2.

4

Hansard,

li,

1279;

Hi,

800-1, 1193.

The

answers

of Russell

and Lansdowne

were

much

the

same

(ibid.,

1198;

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

159-63;

DP,

642/2,

Rutherfurd

to

Maule,

3

Mar.

1840).

5

DP,

658,

Dunlop

to

Maule,

28

Feb.

1840.

6

Hansard,

Iiii, 225-7.

7

Ibid.,

260.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

11/33

THE

DISRUPTION AND

BRITISH

POLITICS

29

1840

which

was won

by

a

conservative

who

was

moderately

sym

pathetic

to

non-intrusion

against

a

liberal

who

was

more

so,

in

fluenced

conservatives

to

attempt

a

settlement.1

The

proposal

which

followed was the main

attempt

during

the crisis to find a

compro

mise.

Aberdeen

was

the

right

man

to

point

out

a

via

media. He shared

the

restrained liberalism

of Peel and his

religious

views

were

sufficiently

eclectic

to

appeal

to

anglicans

as

well

as

presbyterians,

though

by

no means

to

all

those of

either

persuasion.

A

member

of the Church of

Scotland who

had

strongly

advocated

state

support

for

that

Church's

extension,

he

was

yet

able

to

tell Gladstone

(scarcely,

however,

a

sympathetic listener) that he believed 'the differences in the two

Establishments

are

to

be

found

in non-essentials' and

that 'there

is

much

in

the sister

Church

[of England]

which

I

greatly

prefer,

and

to

which

I

readily

conform5.2

If

his

good

intentions

were

fruit

less it

was

because

events

and

personalities

were

making

a

com

promise unacceptable.

His

proposal

of

a

presbyterial

veto

might

have

succeeded

earlier,

but the lords'

verdict and the

Marnoch

imbroglio

had hardened

non-intrusionist

attitudes

and little

short

of

agreement

with

the

Veto Act would

placate

them.

Aberdeen

rejected

a

congregational

veto:

letters from

Moderates

like

the

Rev.

James

Robertson

of

Ellon and

John

Hope weighed

more

with him than

the

appeals

of non-intrusionists like

Dr

Robert

Buchanan.3

Hope's

influence

was

queried

by

G. W. T.

Omond,4

but there

seems

little

reason

to

doubt

it.

Peel had his

own reserva

tions

about

Hope,5

but

the

latter

enjoyed

a

confidential

relationship

with

Aberdeen with whose ecclesiastical views his

own

were

in

close accord.

Hope's

view

of

developments

in

Scotland

undoubtedly

affected conservative

politicians

in

London;

this view was

firmly

Moderate,

though

on

occasion he

showed

surprising

conciliatory

tendencies.

Aberdeen

and others

complained

of

Hope's long

windedness but

they usually

followed

the

course

he

urged.

Aberdeen

told

him in

October

1839

that his Letter

to

the Lord

Chancellor

had

convinced

him,

which

'could

rarely

be said

of

any book';

'I

entertained

great

doubts

respecting

the

Veto,'

he

continued,

'[but]

I

am

now

satisfied that

it

must

be

very

greatly

modified

i Buchanan, Ten Tears'

Conflict,

ii, 155-9; Omond, Lord

Advocates,

70-71;

DP,

626,

Alexander

Gurrie

to

Maule,

24

Feb.

1840;

AP, 43202,

fos.

297,

330,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

11

&

25

Mar.

1840.

2

Gladstone

Papers, 44088,

fos.

25-26,

Aberdeen

to

Gladstone,

10

Dec.

1840;

see

Sir

A.

Gordon,

The

Earl

of

Aberdeen

(London,

1893),

129-30.

Aberdeen had

sought anglican sympathy

for

Scottish

church

extension

by

airing

similar

views in

parliament

{Hansard,

xxx,

1077).

3

E.g.

AP,

43237,

fos.

124-5,

Robertson

of Ellon

to

Aberdeen,

6

Mar.

1840;

ibid.,

fos.

132-5, 141-2,

Buchanan

to

Aberdeen,

25 Mar.,

7

Apr.

&

1

May

1840.

4

Lord

Advocates,

84-85.

5

See

ibid.,

and

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers,

196

n.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

12/33

30

G. I.

T.

MACHIN

before

it

can

be made

tolerable.'1 On

this basis

Aberdeen

adopted

the

idea

on

which

his

bill

was

founded,

that

presbyteries

should

consider

objections

and

make

a

decision

when

presentations

were

opposed

by

members of the

congregation,

and that the reasons for

objection

should be stated

and

found sufficient

before

a

presentee

was

rejected.2

Non-intrusionists

much

preferred

the

suggestion

of

another

conservative,

Sir

George

Clerk,

that

presbyteries

should

take

account

of

the

numbers

objecting

to

a

presentee

even

if

the

reasons

for

objection

were

found

unacceptable.3

Correspondence

and inter

views

between Aberdeen

and

non-intrusionists

suggested

that

Aberdeen might be coming round to this solution, but he stood

by

his

more

limited

view which

was

supported

by

Hope's opinion

that

the Scottish

clergy

were

basically

submissive and

would

give

up

the

veto

rather than

leave the

Church.4

Aberdeen's

biographer

suggests

that

a

forceful intervention

by

Hope

at

the

last

minute

dissuaded

him

from

altering

his

proposal

to

satisfy

the

non-intrusion

ists,5

and

although

such

a

view

may

not

be

complimentary

to

Aberdeen's

independence

of

judgment

it

is

in

keeping

with

con

temporary opinions

about his

political

irresolution.6

Although

non-intrusionists

condemned the

draft

bill,7

Aberdeen

introduced his

measure

in the

lords

on

5

May,

denouncing

the

popular

veto

as

'the

exercise of

an

arbitrary,

capricious,

and

ground

less

will

of

a

congregation

without

any

assigned

reason',

and

pro

posing

instead the

presbyterial

veto

which

'preserved

the

jurisdiction

and

independence

of the

church

.

.

.

gave

due

weight

to

the

just

claims of

the

people,

and did

not

unjustly

restrict

the

rights

of

the

patrons'.8

The

Moderate Robertson of Ellon

thought

that

speech

and bill were both admirable, but he

realistically

added that he

i

AP,

43202,

fo.

248,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

1

Oct.

1839.

2

Bryce,

Ten

Tears,

i,

168-84.

For

Aberdeen's

disputation

with

leading

non

intrusionists

on

this

matter,

see

The

Earl

of

Aberdeen's

Correspondence

with

the Rev.

Dr

Chalmers,

etc.,

14

Jan-27 May

1840

(Edinburgh,

1840).

3

Clerk

Papers,

3397,

address

of

the

Non-Intrusion

Committee

of

the

general

assembly

to

Sir

George

Clerk,

28

Jan. 1840;

Aberdeen's

Correspondence,

47,

Chalmers

to

Aberdeen,

16

Apr.

1840;

Omond,

Lord

Advocates,

75.

Clerk's action

caused

lasting

annoyance

to

Hope

and

Aberdeen

(e.g.

AP, 43205,

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

15

June

1841).

See

also

DP,

658,

Dunlop

to

Maule,

8

Apr.

1840.

4

Buchanan,

Ten Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

164-72;

Aberdeen's

Correspondence,

22-24,

49-50;

Turner,

Scottish

Secession, 224-32;

AP,

43203,

fos.

9-24,

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

14

Apr.

1840.

5

'Possessing

that

influence

which

a

strong

narrow

mind

of

a

positive,

over

bearing

type

often

exerts

over a

mind

of much

higher

quality

in

which self

distrust

and

humility

are

the

leading

characteristics,

the

Dean

[Hope]

succeeded

in

persuading

Lord Aberdeen

to

defer

to

his

advice'

(Gordon,

Aberdeen,

134).

6 See C.

H.

Stuart,

'The

formation

of the coalition cabinet

of

1852',

Trans.

Royal

Hist.

Soc,

5th

ser.,

iv

(1954),

53-54.

7

Buchanan,

Ten Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

175-80.

8

Hansard,

Iiii,

1216-26.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

13/33

THE

DISRUPTION

AND BRITISH POLITICS

31

had

'no

hope

whatever,

that the Bill

will be

acceptable

to

a

majority

of

the

Assembly'.1

Non-intrusionist

disapproval

became, indeed,

an

overwhelming

outcry.

The bill

was

rejected

by

sixty

to

twenty

in the synod of Lothian where there was 'language the most violent,

vituperation

quite

exorbitant,

passion

inflated

beyond conception',

and

the

opinion

was

aired

that

the bill

'deposed

the

Lord

Jesus

Christ

from

his

Throne'.2

Chalmers,

who had

countenanced

a

presbyterial

veto

provided

that

objections

could

be

made

without

expressed

reasons

and that the

numbers

objecting

should

be

a

material

factor,

wrote

bitterly

to

Aberdeen of

his

disappointment:

not

only

was

a

popular

veto

condemned

but

nothing

was

done

to

prevent

the

court

of session

overriding

a

decision

by

the

presbytery.3

The

general

assembly rejected

the bill

by

221 votes to

134;

one

observer

of their

proceedings

could

only

say

that

'they

were

ready

to

go

the whole

hog'.4

Aberdeen

thought

this decision

might

extinguish

his

bill

and

wrote

that he did

not

wish

'to

cram

this

measure

down

their

throats

if

they

dislike

it'.5 But

soon,

for various

reasons,

he

decided

to

take

the

measure

at

least

to

a

second

reading,

and

when

moving

this

on

16

June

he

followed the

advice,

given

in

a

thirteen-page

letter

from

Hope,

that he should stand firm.

Rebutting

the 'monstrous

and

extravagant

pretensions'

of

the

assembly,

he vindicated his

bill

against

objections,

condemned the Veto

Act,

defended

the

suspended

Strathbogie

ministers,

and

finally

gave

a

rhetorical

call

to

Melbourne

to

declare

himself:

'the

noble

viscount could

not

continue

to

sit

chuckling

inwardly

at

the confusion

and

distraction

which

pervaded

Scotland.'6 Melbourne

answered

that

he

did

not

think

the bill

had

sufficient

support

in

Scotland

to

be

a

satisfactory

remedy, and advised the house to drop it.7 Although the second

reading

was

easily

carried

by

seventy-four

votes to

twenty-seven,

with

many

being

absent

because

it

was

Ascot

week,

the

government

had

given

a

direct

negative

and the bill faced

defeat

in the

commons

with its

liberal

majority.8

Aberdeen therefore decided

to

abandon

the

bill,

while

continuing

to

uphold

its

principle

as a

desirable

solu

tion.

He

took the bill

into

committee but

announced

on 10

July

i

AP,

43237,

fos.

173-4,

Robertson

to

Aberdeen,

22

May

1840.

2

AP, 43203, fo. 161, Rev.

Dr

William Muir

to

Hope, 13May 1840.

3

Aberdeen's

Correspondence,

54-56, 60-63,

12

&

18

May

1840;

Watt,

Thomas

Chalmers,

201-5;

Hanna, Chalmers,

iv,

162-74.

See also

W.

Hanna,

A

Selection

from

the

Correspondence

of

the late

Thomas Chalmers

(Edinburgh,

1853),

386

ff.,

Chalmers

to

Lord

Lome, 19

Feb.

1842.

4 Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

195-214;

AP,

43203,

fo.

244,

Sir

A.

Pringle

to

Hope,

2

June

1840.

5 Ibid.,

fos.

214

&

233,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

21

&

31

May

1840.

6

Hansard,

liv,

1205-7; AP,

43203,

fos.

308-21, Hope

to

Aberdeen, 13

June

1840.

7

Hansard,

liv,

1233-7.

8

Ibid.,

1241-2; AP,

43204,

fo.

7,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

17

June

1840.

c


7/25/2019 25528937-1

14/33

32

G. I.

T. MACHIN

that

it

would

be

given

up

for

the

current

parliamentary

session.1

The

opposition

effort

had

failed,

and

the

onus

was

back

on

the

government.

Since

compromise

had failed to win non-intrusionist

approval,

it

was

open

to

the

whigs

to

propose

a

solution

which

was

likely

to

do

so,

namely

to

make the

Veto

Act

a

parliamentary

statute.

But

to

espouse

the

non-intrusionist

cause

would lose both

dissenting

and Moderate

support,

and

this

was

dangerous

when the

govern

ment

risked

defeat

at

the

next

election.2

Thus

the

political

sit

uation,

as

well

as

Melbourne's

unrepentant

erastianism,

favoured

a

policy

of

continuing

to

do

nothing.3

In

the months before the

next

parliamentary session the dispute worsened as the Marnoch case

neared

its climax and

municipal

elections and

a

university

rector

ship

became

battle-grounds

in the

contest.4 But

when

parliament

resumed

in

January

1841

Melbourne's tactics

were

unaltered.

On

29

January

he

said

that

the

government

was

not

prepared

to

alter

the

law;

he

discouraged

a

proposal

by

Sir

George

Sinclair for

a

select

committee,

and

on

3

May

he

said that

'neither

on

the

one

side

nor

on

the other

am

I

prepared

to

alter the constitution of

the

Church

of Scotland'.5

The

whig

attitude is

partly

attributable

to

the

growing

restlessness

of

Scottish

dissent,

which

was

nourished

by

the

conviction

of

unequal

treatment and

was

persistently

mistrustful of non-intrusion.6

In the

autumn

of

1840

Voluntaries

fought

non-intrusionist candidates

in

municipal

elections,

particularly

in

Edinburgh

where after

a

bitter

contest

the Voluntaries

were

defeated but

left

planning

revenge.7

The

prospect

of

liberal division

was

not

lost

on

the

tories.

Aberdeen

and

Hope

were

annoyed

with

the Times for

condemning

a

declara

tion of independent electoral action by Scottish dissenters; Hope

thought

there

was

potential

gain

for the conservatives

and

that

i

Ibid.,

fos.

17-48,

126-7,

Aberdeen-Hope

letters; Hansard, lv,

593-5.

A

declaration

in

favour

of

the bill

was

signed by

244

ministers

and

454

elders

(AP,

43204,

fos.

134-5).

2

Melbourne's

Papers,

418.

3

See

ibid.,

416-17,

Melbourne

to

Dunfermline,

Apr. 1841.

4

The

election

of

the

non-intrusionist

marquess

of

Breadalbane

as

rector

at

Glasgow

was

described

as

'the

greatest

triumph

which the

cause

has

yet

gained'

(AP, 43204, fo. 211, Aberdeen to Hope, 6 Dec. 1840).

5 Hansard, lvi,

137;

lvii,

1385;

GP,

Sinclair

to

Chalmers, 4

Feb.

1841.

6

'The

Dissenters

complain

that,

in

every

thing

Govt,

put

a

stigma

upon

them.

You

exclude them

from

the

Committee

for

printing

the

Bible,

from

being Chap

lains

to

any

Jail.

.

.

etc.

etc'

(DP,

628,

Sir

James

Gibson-Craig

to

Maule,

8

Oct.

1840).

7

For the

Edinburgh

elections

see

DP,

628,

642/2,

658;

AP, 43204,

fo.

199,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

14

Nov.

1840;

Memoirs

of

Adam

Black,

ed. A.

Nichols

(Edin

burgh,

1885),

106-7.

Rutherfurd

called dissenters

'the

most

intolerant &

bigotted

& conceited

and self-willed

and

interested

class,

civil

or

religious,

in

the

country'

(DP,

642/2,

Rutherfurd

to

Maule,

29

Nov.

1840).


7/25/2019 25528937-1

15/33

THE DISRUPTION

AND

BRITISH

POLITICS

33

Peel

should

be

'up

in the matter'.1

The

government

had

to

soothe

dissent,

and

this

further

dimmed

the

chance

of

their

yielding

to

non-intrusionist

demands.

As

Aberdeen

put

it,

'from

the

enormous

difficulty arising

from the difference of

opinion

amongst

[Mel

bourne's]

friends

and

supporters,

he will

probably

attempt

to

scramble

on,

without

doing

anything'.2

In

these

circumstances

the

only

attempt

at

a

legislative

settlement

in

the

1841

session

was

made

again

by

a

conservative,

the duke

of

Argyll,

who

was

prepared

to

offer the non-intrusionists

much

more

than Aberdeen.

Argyll's

bill

went

even

beyond

the Veto

Act,

giving

the

right

of

veto to

all

male

communicants

over

twenty-one,

but

also provided that the veto should be set aside when proved to have

been

instigated

by

factious

motives

or

irrational

prejudice.3

The

debate

on

the

first

reading

in the lords

on

6

May

drove

many

un

interested

peers

from the house and

only twenty-three

were

left,

'almost

all

Scotch,

or

connected

with

Scotland';

a

certain defeat

was

predicted

on

the

second

reading.4

Argyll

would

scarcely

be

supported

by

his

party

leaders,

who would

advance

no

further

than

Aberdeen's

bill,

but

he

could

expect

more

acclaim

from the forth

coming general assembly, despite

the

recent

appearance

of

a

move

ment

for

the

complete

abolition

of

patronage.

The

assembly

met

in

a

mood

of

great

militancy

and the

ardour

of the debates

was

such

that,

according

to

Hope,

'one

poor

creature

.

. .

went

raving

mad

on

the

spot,

and

the

Assembly

had

to

adjourn

till

he

could

be

put

under

restraint and

removed'.5

The

Auchterarder

charge

was

declared

vacant,

to

be

filled

by

a

congregational

call

in

defiance of

the lords'

judgment;

the

Marnoch

ordination

was

pronounced

void,

the

seven

ministers

were

deposed

and

the

con

gregational

choice of minister

upheld,

and in other cases the veto

was

endorsed.6

A

large

party

favouring

the abolition of

patronage

made

itself

felt,

but

Argyll's

bill

was

supported

by

this

group

and

was

carried

by

a

large

majority.7

Chalmers threatened

disruption

i

AP,

43204,

fo.

227,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

3

Jan. 1841;

PP,

40312,

fos.

343-5,

350-61,

Aberdeen

to

Peel,

11

Dec.

1840

&

14

Jan. 1841,

with enclosures.

Peel,

however,

felt

it

'quite

impossible

for

us

to

act

in

concert

with them'

(AP,

43204,

fo.

235,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

10

Feb.

1841).

2

Ibid.,

fo.

256,

Aberdeen

to

Hope,

3

Apr.

1841.

3

Hanna, Chalmers,

iv,

229.

4 CP,

Sir

George

Sinclair

to

Chalmers,

7

May

1841;

Hansard, lvii,

1478-88;

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

336-9.

5

AP,

43205,

fo.

40,

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

1

June

1841.

6

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

367

ff.;

Hanna,

Chalmers,

iv,

219

if.;

AP, 43205,

fos.

29

ff.,

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

30

May

1841.

7

Buchanan,

Ten

Tears'

Conflict,

ii,

340

ff.;

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

30

May

1841

(see

last

note).

This

ambiguity

may

have

meant,

as

Hope

said,

that the

extremists

would

only

take

Argyll's

bill

as a

first

instalment

and make further

demands

later

(ibid.).

It

may

on

the

other

hand have

meant

that

the

anti-patronage

group

were not

determined

on

their

claim

and

would have

settled for less.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

16/33

34

G- I- T. MACHIN

unless

parliament

gave

adequate

redress: 'if

this is

to

be the

last

knell

of the

Presbyterian

Establishment in

Scotland,

only

let

the

Legislature

say

so.'1

Moderates

were

outraged by

the

proceedings.

Hope

asked: 'in the

history

of Protestant

Europe

was there ever

such

a

series of

enormities?';

and

Aberdeen

went

further: 'the

pre

sumption

manifested

by

the General

Assembly.

.

.

was

never

equalled

by

the

Church

of

Rome.'2 The clash of

opinion

made

a

satisfactory

legislative

solution

seem

even

less

likely.

A

swift settle

ment

was

in

any

case

out

of the

question.

The

government

was

defeated

on

a

vote

of

confidence,

it

was

decided

to

dissolve

parlia

ment

on

22

June

and because

of

this

Argyll

would

not

press

his

bill,

though he intended to revive it thereafter.3 Melbourne gave a

last

warning against

the

'dangerous

and

unwise'

expedient

of

an

act

of

parliament

and

recommended

that

the

dispute

should

be

'allowed

to

work itself

out

by

the efforts of

conflicting parties'.4

Whether

the

new

government

would take

a

more

constructive

approach

was

a

question

which

might

be

influenced

by

the

strength

of

the

non-intrusionist

cause

in the

general

election.

Ill

It could be

prophesied

on

the

basis of

previous

attitudes that

neither

party

would

espouse

non-intrusion in

a

bid for

votes.

The

whigs

as

well

as

favouring

Moderatism

had

to

take

account

of

the

Vol

untaries,

and Moderate

whigs

may

have

stressed

Voluntary

dis

content

in

order

to

deter

their

party

from

conciliating

non-intrusion.5

Non-intrusionist

whigs

wrote

bitterly

of 'the

policy

of

succumbing

to

the

Voluntaries'

and

threatened

to

'support

such

as

declare

themselves for

our

cause,

whether

Whig

or

Tory'.6

But the

prospect

of liberal

non-intrusionists

voting

tory

was

inhibited

by

the

fact

that conservatives

were

just

as

reluctant

to

adopt

non-intrusion.

A

compromise

such

as

Aberdeen's bill

was

the

only

move

which

could

win the

agreement

of

many

conservatives,

and

they

did

not

think

it

necessary

to

their

electoral

prospects

to

go

beyond

this.

Hope

told

Aberdeen

of

accounts

from

all

parts

of

Scotland

which

agreed

that

'the

Clergy

will

never

succeed

in

making

any

of

their

questions

tell in the

smallest

degree

in

election

contests',

and

Aber

i

Hanna, Chalmers,

iv,

222.

2

AP,

43205,

fo.

31,

Hope

to

Aberdeen,

30

May

1841;

Hansard,

lviii,

1505.

3

CP,

Argyll

to

Chalmers, 29

May

&

4

June

1841.

4

Hansard,

lviii,

1506-7.

5

Sir

James

Gibson-Craig,

a

veteran

Edinburgh

whig

and

a

Moderate,

prophesied

that

unless dissenters

were

conciliated

'at

next

election

[they]

will

hold

back,

leaving

the

Whigs

to

be

overwhelmed

everywhere

by

the

Tories',

and

warned

that

a

non-intrusionist

like Maule should

not

stand

for

Edinburgh

'for

the

Dissenters would

to

a man

vote

against

you' (DP,

628,

Gibson-Craig

to

Maule,

8

&

16 Oct.

1840

&

17

May

1841).

6

DP,

658, Dunlop

to

Maule,

15

&

19

May 1841.


7/25/2019 25528937-1

17/33

THE

DISRUPTION

AND

BRITISH POLITICS

35

deen

transmitted

the

news

to

Peel.1

The

policy

of either

party

might

have

changed

if

there

had

been

a

strong

non-intrusionist

campaign

amongst

the

electorate.

But

widespread

organisation

was

lacking:

the

leading

non-intrusionist

newspaper,

the

Witness,

contains

nothing

to

show

any

co-ordinated

activity,

and

non

intrusionists

complained

that

this lack

placed

them

at

a

disad

vantage.2

Political

organisation

of

the

cause

was

likely

to

come

only

from

ministers. Non-intrusion

was

basically

a

clerical

movement

and,

except

in

parishes

where

there

was

much

congregational antipathy

to

a

presentee,

the

laity

would

usually

act

in

response

to

ministerial

influence rather than to other reasons. Non-intrusionist ministers

may

sometimes

have inclined

to

non-spiritual

considerations:

in

some

Highland parishes

where

clearances

had taken

place

the

minister

personified

social

as

well

as

ecclesiastical

antipathy

to

the

landlord.

But

only

if

the minister

gave

a

lead

were

many

laymen

likely

25528937-1

Documents