[5] After the usual attendance on the classes in the faculties of Arts and of Law, Dunlop was called to the bar in 1820, and in his earliest years was an ardent student of his profession.

His great knowledge of old Scotch law, especially in its bearing on, the relation between Church and State, as well as his powers of clear thought and expression, made his services sought after.

[1] The sympathies of Dunlop were very warmly enlisted in the operations of the church, and he took an active part in all the ecclesiastical reforms and benevolent undertakings of the period.

But in a pre-eminent degree his interest was excited by the questions relating to the law of patronage, and the collision which arose out of them between the church and the civil courts.

[3] Relying on history and statute, Dunlop very earnestly supported what was called the "non-intrusion" party, led by Thomas Chalmers and others, believing it to be constitutionally in the right, and when the church became involved in litigation he devoted himself with rare disinterestedness to her defence.

He not only defended the church at the bar of the court of session, but in private councils, in committees, deputations, and publications he was unwearied on her behalf.

The inforrnation furnished by the Church to the Government about the number of paupers in Scotland, and the elaborate Report on the same subject presented to the Assembly of 1841, were both the result of Mr Dunlop's almost unaided labour.

[1] His argument, the same in speech and pamphlet, and at last set forth in detail in the Claim of Rights, was substantially this: There is no need in Scotland to dispute about the precise meaning and effects of the abstract doctrine of spiritual independence.

All, including Dunlop, withdrew slowly and regularly amidst perfect silence till that side of the house was left nearly empty.

Following this Free Church Assembly another two legal documents the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission, were signed and registered in the books of Council and Session, on 8 June 1843.

[19] In 1844, he married Eliza Esther, only child of John Murray of Ainslie Place, Edinburgh, and on the death of his father-in-law in 1849, he assumed the name of Murray-Dunlop.

In parliament, however, while generally supporting the liberals he retained an independent position, declining offices both in connection with the government and with his own profession in Scotland, to which his services and abilities well entitled him.

[5][2] Those on legal points introduced important practical amendments of the laws, the most interesting, perhaps, being that which put a stop to Gretna Green marriages.

Mr Dunlop at once placed his resignation in the hands of his constituency, and declared, with his usual high sense of honour, that he would not even stand as a candidate if they disapproved of his conduct.

[1] The most chivalrous of his parliamentary services was an attack (19 March 1861) on the government of Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, which he had usually supported, in connection with the Afghan war.

Lord Palmerston was put to great straits in his defence, as it could not be denied that Burnes's despatches had been changed; but Benjamin Disraeli came to his rescue, and on the ground that the matter was now twenty years old advised the house not to reopen it.

The generous devotion with which he has given himself to this cause (the church) has retarded, and will probably arrest the success of his very considerable talent and learning; but a crust of bread and a cup of cold water would satisfy all the worldly desires of this most disinterested person.