upon a question
then insufficiently discussed, and in which their own interest was by so
many degrees the largest.

These reasons, however, though sufficient for suspense, seem hardly
sufficient for not having solemnly protested against the _Veto_ Act
immediately upon its passing the Assembly. Whatever doubts a few persons
might harbour upon the expediency of such an act, evidently it was
contrary to the law of the land. The General Assembly could have no power
to abrogate a law passed by the three estates of the realm. But probably
it was the deep sense of that truth, which reined up the national
resistance. Sure of a speedy collision between some patron and the
infringers of his right, other parties stood back for the present, to
watch the form which such a collision might assume.

In that same year of 1834, not many months after the passing of the
Assembly's Act, came on the first case of collision; and some time
subsequently a second. These two cases, Auchterarder and Marnoch,
commenced in the very same steps, but immediately afterwards diverged as
widely as was possible. In both cases, the rights of the patron and of the
presentee were challenged peremptorily; that is to say, in both cases,
parishioners objected to the presentee without reason shown. The conduct
of the people was the same in one case as in the other; that of the two
presbyteries travelled upon lines diametrically opposite. The first case
was that of _Auchterarder_. The parish and the presbytery concerned, both
belonged to Auchterarder; and there the presbytery obeyed the new law of
the Assembly: they rejected the presentee, refusing to take him on trial
of his qualifications; And why? we cannot too often repeat--simply because
a majority of a rustic congregation had rejected him, without attempting
to show reason for his rejection. The Auchterarder presbytery, for _their_
part in the affair, were prosecuted in the Court of Session by the injured
parties--Lord Kinnoul, the patron, and Mr Young, the presentee. Twice,
upon a different form of action, the Court of Session gave judgment
against the presbytery; twice the case went up by appeal to the Lords;
twice the Lords affirmed the judgment of the court below. In the other
case of _Marnoch_, the presbytery of Strathbogie took precisely the
opposite course. So far from abetting the unjust congregation of rustics,
they rebelled against the new law of the Assembly, and declared, by seven
of their numb