the parish, as having
by their majorities a legal right to the presentation? There lay the
question. The presumptions from antiquity were all against the call. The
more modern practice had occasionally been _for_ it. Now, we all know how
many colourable claims of right are created by prescription. What was the
exact force of the "call," no man could say. In like manner, the exact
character and limit of allowable objections had been ill-defined in
practice, and rested more on a vague tradition than on any settled rule.
This also made it hard to say whether Lord Aberdeen's Act were enactory or
declaratory, a predicament, however, which equally affects all statutes
_for removing doubts_.

The "call," then, we consider as no longer recognised by law. But did Lord
Aberdeen by that change establish the right of the patron as an
unconditional right? By no means. He made it strictly a conditional right.
The presentee is _now_ a candidate, and no more. He has the most important
vote in his favour, it is true: but that vote may still be set aside,
though still only with the effect of compelling the patron to a new choice.
"_Calls_" are no longer doubtful in their meaning, but "_objections_" have
a fair field laid open to then. All reasonable objections are to be
weighed. But who is to judge whether they _are_ reasonable? The presbytery
of the district. And now pursue the action of the law, and see how little
ground it leaves upon which to hang a complaint. Every body's rights are
secured. Whatever be the event, first of all the presentee cannot complain,
if he is rejected only for proved insufficiency. He is put on his trial as
to these points only: 1. Is he orthodox? 2. Is he of good moral
reputation? 3. Is he sufficiently learned? And note this, (which in fact
Sir James Graham remarked in his official letter to the Assembly,)
strictly speaking, he ought not to be under challenge as respects the
third point; for it is your own fault, the fault of your own licensing
courts (the presbyteries,) if he is not qualified so far. You should not
have created him a licentiate, should not have given him a license to
preach, as must have been done in an earlier stage of his progress, if he
were not learned enough. Once learned, a man is learned for life. As to
the other points, he may change; and _therefore_ it is that an examination
is requisite. But how can _he_ complain, if he is found by an impartial
court of venerable men objectionable