nd military
powers in the just and lawful discharge of their duty.'

"This, now, is all very plausible, but, perhaps, by looking a little
more closely into the circumstances of the case, we may be able to
perceive that in this passage, and one or two others of a similar
character, the most objectionable part of the system lies disguised--if
one can say disguised, because to me, my dear Spinageberd, the matter
seems obvious enough. Who, then, are these men that come forward with
arms in their hands, to proffer aid to the civil and military powers in
the discharge of their duty? A self-constituted body without authority,
who have certainly proved themselves to be brave men, and rendered most
important services to the state, at a time when such services were, no
doubt, both necessary and acceptable. The crisis, however, in which this
aid was given and received, being but of brief duration, soon passed
away, leaving the party opposed to government--the rebels--broken,
punished, flogged, banished, hanged; in fact, completely discomfited,
subdued, beaten down. In other words, the rebellion of '98 having been
thoroughly suppressed, this self-elected body of men, tasting the sweets
of authority, retain, under different circumstances, these obligations,
which, we admit, the previous situation of the country had rendered
necessary. They retain them in times of peace, and bring into operation
against men who were no longer either in a disposition or capacity to
resist, those strong prejudices and that fierce spirit which, originated
in tumult and civil war. Why, nobody complains of the conduct of
Orangemen, as a, body, in '98; it is of their outrages since, that the
country, and such as were opposed to them, have a right to complain.

"In another passage the declaration is still stronger and more
significant: 'We further declare,' say they, 'that we are exclusively a
Protestant association; yet, detesting as we do, any intolerant spirit,
we solemnly pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not persecute,
injure, nor upbraid any person on account of his religious opinions,
provided the same be not hostile to the state.'

'"That is to say, they will persecute, injure, or upbraid such persons
only whose religious opinions are hostile to the state. But, now, let
me ask any man of common sense, if he could for a moment hesitate to
declare on oath what religion they have alluded to as being hostile to
the state? There is, in truth