the hunt.

In such cases of pretended objections to men who have not been tried, we
need scarcely tell the reader, that usually they are mere cabals and
worldly intrigues. It is next to impossible that any parish or
congregation should sincerely agree in their opinion of a clergyman. What
one man likes in such cases, another man detests. Mr A., with an ardent
nature, and something of a histrionic turn, doats upon a fine rhetorical
display. Mr B., with more simplicity of taste, pronounces this little
better than theatrical ostentation. Mr C. requires a good deal of critical
scholarship. Mr D. quarrels with this as unsuitable to a rustic
congregation. Mrs X., who is "under concern" for sin, demands a searching
and (as she expresses it) a "faithful" style of dealing with consciences.
Mrs Y., an aristocratic lady, who cannot bear to be mixed up in any common
charge together with low people, abominates such words as "sin," and wills
that the parson should confine his "observations" to the "shocking
demoralization of the lower orders."

Now, having stated the practice of Scottish induction, as it was formerly
sustained in its first stage by law, in its second stage by usage, let us
finish that part of the subject by reporting the _existing_ practice as
regulated in all its stages by law. What law? The law as laid down in Lord
Aberdeen's late Act of Parliament. This statement should, historically
speaking, have found itself under our _third_ head, as being one amongst
the consequences immediately following the final rupture. But it is better
placed at this point; because it closes the whole review of that topic;
and because it reflects light upon the former practice--the practice which
led to the whole mutinous tumult: every alteration forcing more keenly
upon the reader's attention what had been the previous custom, and in what
respect it was held by any man to be a grievance.

This Act, then, of Lord Aberdeen's, removes all _legal_ effect from the
"_call_." Common sense required _that_. For what was to be done with
patronage? Was it to be sustained, or was it not? If not, then why quarrel
with the Non-intrusionists? Why suffer a schism to take place in the
church? Give legal effect to the "call," and the original cause of quarrel
is gone. For, with respect to the opponents of the Non-intrusionists,
_they_ would bow to the law. On the other hand, if patronage _is_ to be
sustained, then why allow of any lingering or doubtful