government to be made the precedent and example for the arbitrary proceedings of the next? This is even admitting that the cases are similar, a point which we by no means concede.

We have devoted so much space to Mr. Croly's pamphlet, and the all-important subject which it suggests, that we have precluded ourselves from commenting upon the Downshire meeting at the length that we would wish. But we would be guilty of an act of positive injustice if we did not allude to the conduct of the Orangemen in reference to this meeting-conduct which has raised the institution in the estimation of the community. Those who know the love which the Orangemen of Ulster bear to the colours and the badges of their institution, will be able to appreciate the forbearance that prevented their exhibition on an occasion when their leaders requested that they would not be displayed. There is abroad among the Protestants of the North a feeling, a very natural feeling, that by attending any meeting where they are prevented from exhibiting the colours of loyalty and love, they are lending a tacit countenance to the calumnies against their institution, as if these emblems were a thing of which any portion of Protestantism had need to be ashamed; but this feeling they overcame; and though the great majority of those present at Hillsborough were Orangemen, not a single party badge or colour was displayed.

We mention this, not so much for the purpose of doing justice to the Orangemen, as of pointing out their conduct for imitation. The Orange Institution is one to which, hitherto, too little credit has been given by the Protestant party, and which has been kept too much in the back ground. We confess that we share in the charge that we bring against our party, and it is not by a few hurried lines of testimony, like that which we now bear, that we think that we can do justice to the orderly, the loyal, and the Christian principles of this body, and atone for having remained so long silent, at least comparatively silent, with regard to them. Ere long we hope to bear more ample testimony to their merits and their character, by devoting a separate paper to the history and defence of the institution. We have no

hesitation in thus publicly identifying ourselves with our brethren: we rejoice in making it our own interest, as by our declaration we do, to remove, as far as our humble efforts can, the unjust suspicions with which Orangeism is regarded.

When we mention the conduct of the Orangemen of Down as a subject for imitation by their brethren, we mean particularly in reference to the great public meetings. Too much praise cannot be given to the Orange authorities of Cavan and Down, for the manner in which they managed to keep all party emblems apart from their county meetings. The same must be done wherever such meetings are held, and these, we confidently anticipate, will be universal throughout Ulster. This brings us to speak upon a subject which we would much rather avoidwe mean the conduct of the High Sheriff of Armagh, in refusing to convene the meeting of his bailiwick on the highly respectable requisition that was presented to him; not that we feel any difficulty in saying what we think of Mr. Brownlow, but we certainly do feel a considerable difficulty in speaking of the requisitionists. We cannot commend their conduct in neglecting to convene the meeting, merely because a renegade high sheriff refused to do so; and yet, in utter ignorance of the local circumstances that influenced their determination, we feel it difficult to blame them. Mr. Brownlow is not popular in the county, and it may have been that they feared his refusal had so exasperated the people, that the degree of excitement created by it would have communicated to the meeting too violent a character. We confess, however, that this appears to us to be a most unworthy suspicion. The Protestants of the North have manifested a forbearance under circumstances of much greater provocation that would have justified the fullest confidence in their peaceable and orderly demeanour. We write, be it remembered, in utter ignorance of the motives of the requisitionists. To us, viewing their conduct from a distance, it does certainly appear to be reprehensible; and nothing but the respect we feel for the judgment of many who were parties to that conduct, induces us to pause for one moment in this

opinion. Of Mr. Brownlow's refusal we shall say but little. The reason assigned for the refusal is the most curious point of all. He was required to convene a meeting of the freeholders of Armagh, to consider what steps should be taken in the present crisis-he was himself to preside at this county meeting, and could therefore be sure that the sense of the county would be fairly taken-and yet he has recorded his opinion, that a meeting so convened, and so managed, would be a party meeting. What Mr. Brownlow means by a party meeting it is not difficult to understand; and thus we have at least his written testimony as to the opinions and feelings of the freeholders of Armagh. This testimony, it is true, materially diminished the necessity of a meeting; but still, we say, the requisitionists should not have deprived the freeholders of the county of the opportunity of backing Mr. Brownlow's evidence by a more unequivocal demonstration of their feelings.

The sheriff of a county should be, in the exercise of his duty, an impartial officer; and when a requisition, properly signed, is presented to him to convene a county meeting, no consideration should prevent his compliance, unless either the conviction that the objects specified in the requisition are illegal or unconstitutional, or that the proposed meeting will lead to a violation of the law. In convening the meeting, or presiding at a meeting so convened, he is but the passive organ of the sentiments of the county. He is no more pledged to the resolutions adopted, than when he presides in the great meeting of his bailiwick to elect knights of the shire, he is pledged to the opinions of the members he declares duly elected. His duty, in both cases, is an impartial one-fairly to collect the suffrages of the freeholders, and to prevent any violation of the peace. Mr. Brownlow does not pretend to say, that

the objects of the requsitionists were illegal, or that the meeting would have been a disorderly one. No! he declares in his wisdom, that if the freeholders of Armagh were constitutionally convened, he knows very well that the meeting would take a bias which he is pleased to consider a party one-that is, a bias opposed to Mr. Brownlow's views-and therefore, as far as his power extended, and it seems effectually, he has deprived the freeholders, with whose privileges he was entrusted, of their undoubted right of declaring their opinions in a county meeting. This, however, is Whig liberality, and Whig regard for popular opinion.

But these manoeuvres must not succeed in silencing the voice of Protestant Ulster. There are high sheriffs who will not follow the example of the high sheriff of Armagh; and even if they do, there are gentry who will not imitate the conduct of the requisitionists in that county. Whatever be the motives which influenced their determination, we protest against its passing into a precedent. A requisition, signed by seven freeholders, is all that even the Six Acts require to legalize a meeting; and, let the sheriffs act as they choose, the meetings will be held, and the voice of Protestant Ulster will be heard-the voice that forced from England the recognition of Ireland's independence in 1782-will again be heard proclaiming that there are rights which we will not tamely yield, and principles that we will not surrender without a struggle. How far the British government will dare to disregard the declarations of nine or ten such meetings as those held at Cavan and Hillsborough--to make no account of the indignant remonstrances of the united gentry and yeomanry of a province, is a question to which it is not for us to venture a reply. Upon their own heads be the responsibility of the answer.