e say, he is worthy of reproach,
and ought to be viewed as the common enemy of mankind."[79]

News of the aggression soon found its way to Mr. Mackenzie at
Lewiston.[80] He at once returned to York, and lost no time in
instituting proceedings against eight of the aggressors who had
constituted themselves a vigilance committee at his expense. He brought
a civil action for damages, and erelong these incipient "Regulators of
Upper Canada" began to realize that they had acted with some
precipitation and foolhardiness. It seemed probable that they would be
mulcted in heavy damages; and even these would be no bar to a criminal
prosecution. The aforementioned James Buchanan Macaulay was appointed to
conduct their defence. The plaintiff's attorney was James Edward Small,
a rising young lawyer who afterwards made some figure in political life,
and who belonged to a well-known family in York. Overtures in the
direction of a compromise were made on behalf of the raiders, who
offered first two hundred pounds and afterwards three hundred by way of
full compensation. The smaller amount would have been an abundant
recompense for the actual loss,[81] but Mackenzie felt that public
sympathy was with him, and he was desirous that the facts should go to a
jury. The offer of the defendants was rejected, and the case came on for
trial before Chief Justice Campbell and a special jury in the following
October. Associated with the Chief Justice were the Honourable William
Allan and Mr. Alexander McDonnell, as Justices of the Peace. The
plaintiff's counsel were Marshall Spring Bidwell, J. E. Small, and
Alexander Stewart, of Niagara. The defendants were represented by J. B.
Macaulay and Christopher Alexander Hagerman. These names afford
sufficient evidence that full justice was done to the case on both
sides. Hagerman was a counsel of remarkable ability, and he fought very
hard. His argument was a masterpiece of clever, specious reasoning, well
calculated to produce an effect upon uneducated or half-educated
jurymen. He took an enlightened stand, admitting the advantage to a
community of a free and unfettered press. He then proceeded to argue
away all the consequences of the admission, alleging that the career of
the _Advocate_ had been one of license, and not of mere freedom. But the
evidence of the outrage was clear and unassailable, and the defence did
not venture to call any witnesses. It was proved on behalf of the
plaintiff that three memb