nadian party journals of the present
day.

Being called upon for his defence, Mackenzie addressed the House with
more than his wonted ability. He exposed the flimsiness of the charges
against him, and the gross partiality of the proceedings. But the House
was in search, not of justice, but of a victim, and neither the
eloquence of a Demosthenes nor the reasoning powers of a Pascal would
have availed aught with that hostile majority. Attorney-General Boulton,
in the course of the discussion, delivered himself of a tempest of
characteristic abuse against the accused, to whom he referred as a
reptile. Solicitor-General Hagerman could always be depended upon as a
good second in such emergencies, and followed up by referring to Mr.
Mackenzie as a spaniel dog. The House seemed to accept these choice
Parliamentary epithets with approval. They came from an official
source, and it is so easy to be strong upon the stronger side. Little
chance was there for the maimed and bleeding under dog in the fight
among that crowd of venal and merciless sycophants, some of whom had
libelled the late Assembly in terms thrice as gross as any that had been
employed in the articles in question. The _tu quoque_ argument is not
generally admissible in legal investigations, but surely it might have
been permitted to have some weight with the judges--who were likewise
the jurors--in this case. Neither that nor any argument appears to have
been seriously considered. The usual forms were gone through, in order
to preserve some appearance of conventional propriety, but a verdict of
guilty was altogether certain and beyond peradventure from the moment
when the indictment was laid. By a vote of twenty-seven to fifteen it
was resolved that Mackenzie was guilty of the libel charged against him.
By a vote of twenty-six to fourteen it was resolved that he was guilty
of a high breach of the privileges of the House. And by a vote of
twenty-four to fifteen, it was resolved that he be expelled therefrom.

To characterize these proceedings as a series of shameful abuses of
power is certainly not to exceed the bounds of moderation. The persons
responsible for them must stand tainted at the bar of history for all
time to come. It is far from desirable to perpetuate the bitterness of
the past, but it is possible for oblivion to be too charitable. It is
well that those who are accustomed to speak of "the rebels" of 1837 with
contumely and indignation should bear in