THE CASE OF FRANCIS COLLINS.

Top

In the foregoing pages mention has several times been made of Francis Collins, editor, proprietor and publisher of The Canadian Freeman, a Radical weekly newspaper issued at York. Mr. Collins was an enthusiastic young Irish Roman Catholic, who had immigrated to Canada a short time before the excitement arising out of the Gourlay persecution reached its height, and when he himself was barely twenty years of age. He was a printer by trade, and for some time after his arrival worked as a compositor in the office of The Upper Canada Gazette, published at York by the King's Printer, Dr. Robert Charles Horne. Finding that he possessed much intelligence and a fair education, his employer deputed him to report the debates in the Assembly during the sessions of Parliament. In 1821 he reported certain proceedings which the Government were annoyed at seeing in print, more especially as the version given was not strictly accurate. For this offence Dr. Horne was summoned to the bar of the House, where he sought to evade responsibility by pleading that the debates had not been reported by himself, but by Francis Collins. The Doctor further offered a humble apology, and was glad to escape with a sharp reprimand, accompanied by a caution from the Speaker that he would thereafter be held responsible for the reports in the Gazette.[118]

Within a short time after receiving this admonition Dr. Horne ceased to be King's Printer, whereby the post became vacant. As Collins was familiar with the nature of the work, and was naturally desirous of bettering his condition, he applied for the appointment. The office was at the disposal of the Lieutenant-Governor, and was held entirely at his pleasure. Collins was curtly checked for his presumption by a leading official, who informed him that the office would be conferred upon "no one but a gentleman." It would be interesting to know whence the official who was guilty of this wanton insult had derived his ideas of courtesy and good breeding. If his statement were to be credited, any application on his part for the post of King's Printer would most assuredly have been made in vain. The appointment was given to Mr. Charles Fothergill, who belonged to a good Yorkshire family, and was therefore fully entitled to rank as a gentleman.[119]

Collins was excusably indignant at the gross insult which had been hurled at him. He considered himself as at least the social equal of any member of the Government, for he claimed descent from the old Irish kings, and on one or two occasions when more than ordinarily exhilarated he had even been known to refer to his ancestor, Brian Boru. Yet, for all this mendacious and vainglorious boasting, Collins was a man of unquestionable ability, and when fully aroused could write a paragraph well calculated to make the ears of his enemies to tingle. His nationality was clearly indicated by his personal appearance, his features being rough-hewn and unmistakably Celtic; while his red hair and beard, usually not very well cared for, gave him an aspect of uncouth wildness. Up to this time he had not taken any very conspicuous part in politics since his arrival in Canada; but henceforward the Executive had no more bitter or sleepless foe. He continued to report the proceedings in Parliament, and kept his eyes ever open for an opportunity to strike the Government with effect. In 1825 he succeeded in establishing the Freeman, which was thenceforth to some extent a rival of Mackenzie's Advocate. It was from the first conducted with great energy, and the editorials, which were often set up without being committed to paper, displayed exceptional vigour, but they were frequently disfigured by a coarseness and bad taste equal to anything of Mackenzie's production. For some time the better class of Liberals fought shy of the enterprise, but the editor steadily forced his way into general recognition.

The Freeman was permitted to continue its course unchecked for nearly three years. During that time it followed up the shortcomings of the Executive with ceaseless vigilance. To Sir Peregrine Maitland and Attorney-General Robinson it was a veritable thorn in the flesh. There was abundant occasion for criticism, and it was seldom, if ever, that Collins resorted to pure invention for the purpose of attacking the innumerable abuses of the time. There was always a sufficient substratum of truth in his accusations to render it inexpedient to prosecute him for libel. The punishment of what was false would have involved the public exposure of what was true. The official party realized the force of the laureate's dictum, not then propounded, that

"A lie that is all a lie may be met with and fought outright,
But a lie that is part of a truth is a harder matter to fight."

They of course did not present the matter in this aspect to the world at large. On the contrary, their organs claimed for them a spirit of generous and Christian forbearance. But this could not go on for ever. Collins continued to pour in his chain-shot from week to week with never-failing pertinacity, and with seeming impunity from the law. The Executive in the first place tried to check his career by crippling him financially. The Assembly had for some years previously been accustomed to vote him an annual sum by way of remuneration for reporting their proceedings. The paying over of this sum, however, was a matter entirely within the control of the Lieutenant-Governor. As it was known that Collins was poor, and that his resources were sometimes taxed to the uttermost to enable him to bring out his paper, it was hoped that, by withholding payment for his services as reporter to the Assembly, he might be compelled to suspend publication. He was accordingly informed, when he applied for his money in the early spring of 1828, that the funds were not forthcoming. The sum in question was £118 10s., and was a matter of serious importance to him; but he well understood the object of the Executive, and spurred himself up to fresh effort. His paper appeared with the most provoking regularity, and its tone was, if possible, intensified by the withholding of the sum due to its editor. He told the story to the public, his account being garnished with profuse comments in his bitterest vein. The Executive found that they had miscalculated his resources, and that his press was conducted with renewed vigour. It was finally resolved that a dead-set should be made upon him, and that he should be overwhelmed by a shower of contemporaneous indictments. On Thursday, the 10th of April, 1828, as mentioned in the preceding chapter,[120] two bills of indictment for libel were found against him. One of these was for having, in his paper, charged the Lieutenant-Governor with partiality, injustice and fraud, in not paying over the money voted by the Assembly. The other was on the information of the Solicitor-General, Henry John Boulton, for animadversions on his conduct in connection with the duel, in 1817, between Samuel Peters Jarvis and John Ridout.[121] Upon the strength of these indictments Collins was forthwith arrested, and compelled to appear and give the required bail. On the following morning two other bills were found, upon which he also gave bail. It was at this time that he made his extraordinary attack upon the Attorney-General, before Justice Willis, as already narrated at length.[122] It will be remembered that he was instructed by the Judge to go before the Grand Jury and prefer his complaints. These instructions he followed without a moment's unnecessary delay. He appeared before the Grand Jury, and charged H. J. Boulton and J. E. Small with being accessary to murder in the killing of young Ridout. He next laid a charge of rioting against S. P. Jarvis and six other persons who had figured as defendants in the action brought by Mackenzie. The Grand Jury speedily returned a true bill against Boulton and Small. Both those gentlemen were then in Court with their gowns on. They were immediately put under arrest, and they so remained until late in the afternoon, when Judge Willis, upon the application of Mr. Macaulay, admitted them to bail. As Jarvis had been tried for the offence and acquitted, shortly after the duel in 1817, the Grand Jury now returned "No bill" as to him. On the following Monday a true bill was returned by the Grand Jury against the seven persons charged with riot. They were promptly arrested and held to bail.

Collins, having no faith in Attorney-General Robinson's integrity, was very unwilling that the prosecution of these cases should be conducted by him. Boulton was not only the Attorney-General's colleague as a law officer of the Crown, but was his warm personal friend, as well as a connexion by marriage. Boulton, in fact, was a profound admirer and faint umbra of the Attorney-General, in whose professional sunshine he basked, and at whose feet he may in an intellectual sense be said to have grovelled. Even the most Spartan of Crown prosecutors could hardly be expected to do his utmost to secure a conviction under such circumstances; and Attorney-General Robinson had nothing of the Spartan in his composition where the interests of his friends were concerned. Collins accordingly applied to Robert Baldwin to conduct the prosecution for murder. But the prosecution of criminal cases was not then open to the bar as a matter of course, and without the consent of the Crown. Mr. Baldwin applied to the Court for the necessary permission, which was granted with the Attorney-General's consent. The trial was proceeded with before Justice Willis at the opening of the Court on the morning of Monday, the 14th. The defendants, upon being arraigned, pleaded "Not guilty." The proceedings extended over two days, during which the same evidence was given that had been adduced at the trial in 1817. All the horrible details of the duel were revived for the edification of a crowded Court-room. Many of the spectators, as well as the Judge himself, were affected to tears. The custom of society was once more successfully pleaded in extenuation of a cruel and dastardly murder. As the chief offender had himself escaped scot-free, however, it would have seemed anomalous to punish the accessaries. The charge from the bench was eloquent and judicial, and the jury were absent from the box only ten minutes, when they returned into Court with a verdict of acquittal.

The trial of the type-rioters next required consideration. Collins's counsel moved for leave to the prosecutor to conduct this case also by private counsel, but to this the Attorney-General firmly refused to consent. It was urged that one of the accused was his nephew, and that two others had been clerks in his office at the time of the outrage. No matter; he was determined to withstand any further interference with Crown prosecutions on the part of the bar. There was no telling, he remarked, where such interference would end. There had already been too much of it. He was about to proceed with the prosecution, when Mr. Rolph arose on behalf of Collins, and expressed a wish that, as the painful investigation of the murder case had been finished, the prosecutions for libel might be discontinued. Judge Willis warmly seconded the proposal, and further suggested that the prosecution of the type-rioters might also be dropped. The type-rioters, however, were ready and waiting for their trial, and, through their counsel, objected to any abandonment so far as they were concerned. It was urged on their part that they had never wished to avoid prosecution, but had rather courted it; that they would accept of no compromise of a proceeding which had been maliciously and vexatiously instituted, not by the person injured, but by one who, being brought into Court for libel, had been received as a sort of public prosecutor, and allowed to harass them by raking into old transactions which had long since been investigated and atoned for. They insisted upon the matter being there and then finally disposed of, so that it might no longer be in the power of any malicious person wholly unconnected with the case to prosecute them at his pleasure. The trial was then proceeded with. The persons charged were of course found guilty. Judge Willis was very lenient, and sentenced them to a nominal fine of five shillings each, expressly stating as a reason for this slight punishment that more than ample recompense had already been obtained in the civil action.[123]

With respect to the indictments against Collins, the Judge's appeal to the Attorney-General was not altogether without efficacy, notwithstanding the ill blood between them. The fact is that the latter was glad enough of any excuse for abandoning the two prosecutions instituted by Boulton and Jarvis, feeling well assured that there was no likelihood of securing a conviction in either case. He could subserve his own and his friends' interests, and at the same time assume the appearance of deferring to the suggestion from the bench. The consent of the prosecutors having been obtained, he therefore announced in open Court that he would proceed no further upon those indictments. He added, however, that there were further indictments against Collins which had emanated from the Grand Jury, and that he could not with proper deference to them at once relinquish proceedings therein. "But I have no objections to state," said the Attorney-General, "that I will forbear any further action during the present Assizes, and that in proceeding or not hereafter, I shall be governed in a great measure by the sense which the defendant shall show of his duty and obligations as the conductor of a public newspaper." Bail was accordingly furnished by Collins on one of the presentments. The other was tacitly allowed to lapse; and there, for the time, the matter ended.

The editor of the Freeman certainly gave the Attorney-General no excuse for leaving him unmolested. In each successive issue of his paper he lashed the whole race of officials, to some of whom he applied the most opprobrious epithets. The Government organs pursued a similar course on their side, and characterized Collins and his friends in language too gross for quotation. The Attorney-General probably repented that he had not proceeded on at least one of the indictments during the late Assizes, and resolved that another opportunity should not pass unimproved. The autumn Assizes opened during the second week in October, when he attempted to press one of the old charges against Collins. The defendant appealed to Judge Sherwood, who occupied the bench, representing that his counsel was not in Court, and that he had never been arraigned. The Attorney-General replied that the absence of the defendant's counsel was not the fault of the Crown, and that he had been arraigned at the spring Assizes. The latter statement was denied by the defendant, and upon referring to the Clerk of Assize it appeared that there had been no arraignment. Next day the Attorney-General again attempted to force on the trial, but as it was clear that the defendant had not been arraigned the latter now claimed the right to traverse. As this right was indisputable it was conceded by the Court, the result being that the defendant was entitled to have the trial held over until the next sittings, which would not take place until the following spring. The Attorney-General, however, was entitled to demand that the defendant should find security, and promptly urged his demand. Collins knew that were he to find the required security it would embarrass him in the conduct of his paper, and stated that he would prefer to be tried at once rather than adopt such an alternative. He was accordingly tried, and, though the prosecution was pressed against him with all the vigour at the Attorney-General's command, he was acquitted by the jury.

But the Attorney-General was not the man to allow his prey to escape him while any chance remained of securing a conviction. A fresh indictment was laid against him for a personal libel upon the Attorney-General himself. Collins, in reporting the trial which had just resulted in his acquittal, had accused the Attorney-General of "open palpable falsehood," and "native malignancy," and had referred to Judge Hagerman as "our old customer." This report had been published at full length in the Freeman, and it was the ground of the prosecution now instituted. The defendant laboured under the same compulsion with regard to security as before, and elected to stand his trial at once, which was precisely what the Attorney-General desired. The indictment, which may still be seen among the records at Osgoode Hall, was a truly formidable instrument, and set out the offence with great prolixity. The trial took place on Saturday, the 25th, before Mr. Justice Sherwood, who, in charging the jury, inveighed against the defendant with nearly as great vehemence as did the Crown prosecutor, stigmatizing him as "a wholesale retailer of calumny." He pronounced the Freeman's report to be "a gross and scandalous libel."[124] It was plainly evident that Mr. Sherwood's mind was not equable, and that he was influenced by considerations not properly before him. The fact that his son Henry, and his brother-in-law, H. J. Boulton, had respectively been prosecuted for riot and murder at Collins's instigation was too clearly held in remembrance, insomuch that every point was strained to the utmost against the defendant. Judge Sherwood, however, was absent from the bench when the jury returned into Court with their verdict, his place being taken by Judge Hagerman, who had many times been subjected to the arrows of Collins's satire, and who was referred to with bantering contumely in the very report which formed the subject of the present prosecution. The jury, after deliberating about five hours, brought in a verdict of "Guilty of a libel on the Attorney-General." The Clerk recorded a general verdict of "Guilty," which was read to the jury. The defendant's counsel objected to the recording of the verdict in this form, inasmuch as the jury had found his client guilty of libel on the Attorney-General only. A brief argument on the subject ensued, whereupon the Judge charged the jury to the effect that such a verdict as they had found could not be received. He informed them that if they found the defendant guilty of any part of the alleged libel, they ought to return a general verdict of "Guilty;" but that they might, if they thought proper, suggest to the Court on what particular part of the publication their verdict was founded, in which case the Court would confine the punishment to that part only. The jury thereupon retired a second time, but soon returned with a general verdict of "Guilty." On being asked by the Judge whether they adhered to their former opinion as to the libellous part of the publication, they answered in the affirmative.

The sentence of the Court was not pronounced until sufficient time had elapsed to admit of a conference on the subject between Justices Sherwood and Hagerman. That such a conference really took place is clear enough from a letter of Judge Sherwood himself, to be presently referred to. The sentence, when it came, created much surprise, not only in the bosom of the individual who was directly concerned, but among the public at large. It condemned the defendant to pay a fine of fifty pounds, to be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, to find securities for his good behaviour for three years after his liberation, himself in four hundred pounds and two sureties in one hundred pounds each, and to stand committed until all these conditions should be complied with.

Certainly it was no wonder that the little world of upper Canada opened its eyes at such a Star Chamber sentence as this, pronounced in the year of Grace 1828. It seemed as if the whirligig of time had brought back the days of Bartemus Ferguson and The Niagara Spectator.[125] It was an open question with many persons, even among those who were upon the whole favourable to the measures of the Government, whether the prosecution should have been sustained at all or not. A charge of "native malignancy" was not likely to seriously affect the character or standing of Attorney-General Robinson, who was ready enough to apply much stronger epithets to his enemies. But, however that might be, there could be no sort of doubt that the punishment awarded was wholly disproportionate to the offence, more especially when the defendant's circumstances were considered. If persisted in, the sentence really involved the latter's perpetual imprisonment, for no two men of substance were likely to be found who would feel safe in guaranteeing the good behaviour of such a turbulent spirit as Francis Collins for so long a period as three years. Throughout the whole of this infamous persecution the Attorney-General showed to very little advantage. As previously mentioned, he had showered four indictments upon the defendant within the brief space of two days. Three of these he had withdrawn, and upon the fourth the defendant had been acquitted. He had then gone out of his way to lay a personal information upon a very insignificant pretext. Poor Collins was his enemy, and must not be allowed to characterize his conduct as "native malignancy," whereas the editors of newspapers under the patronage and pay of the Government were permitted to pursue a deliberate system of malicious vilification with impunity. The latter were allowed to publicly malign not only individual members of the Opposition, but to circulate the grossest libels upon the House of Assembly itself. With these offences the Attorney-General did not think fit to meddle. They were committed by his personal and political friends, and, unless common rumour seriously belied him, were not seldom committed at his own instigation. At any rate he maintained the most amicable relations with the libellers, and allowed no opportunity of serving their material interests to pass unimproved. Such inconsistency forced itself upon public attention. People who up to that time had supported the official party began to ask where this one-sidedness was to end. The Attorney-General had no right, it was said, to reward his friends for doing precisely the same things as those for which he punished and imprisoned his enemies. It was remembered against him how, when disputing with Judge Willis as to the nature of his official duties, he had with scorn repudiated the suggestion that he should proceed in the absence of instructions, even against notorious evil-doers. It was remembered that he had declined to take any official cognizance of so serious an offence against the public peace as the type-riot, which had been committed by his own friends and protÉgÉs. Yet he had here gone out of his way to prosecute to his ruin a poor wretch who, certainly not without great provocation, had merely accused him of falsehood and native malignancy. A man who accommodated his conduct to his inclinations in this way might perhaps be much beloved by his friends, but he certainly had no claim to be considered either good or great. The faction, from Dr. Strachan downwards, had for years been holding up John Beverley Robinson to the admiration of Upper Canadians. By many he had been accepted at their valuation. The Selkirk and Gourlay episodes, together with a score of others less noteworthy, had been slurred over. As the worst of these had occurred some years before, they had been partly forgotten by the existing generation. But the remorseless vindictiveness and cruelty displayed throughout the Collins prosecution were patent to everybody. They did much to lower the Attorney-General in popular estimation, and to destroy public confidence in the integrity of the Judges. They gave rise to an uneasy feeling of discontent, and doubtless had their share in bringing about the troubles of 1837-38.

Collins went to jail, where, in spite of great exertions on his behalf, he was compelled to remain for many months. The fine was paid, like the damages in the type-riot case, by public subscription. Appeals from various quarters to the Lieutenant-Governor on the prisoner's behalf were made in vain. The incumbent of that office was no longer Sir Peregrine Maitland, whose torpid and nerveless administration had come to an end some weeks before,[126] when, as previously mentioned, he had taken his departure for Nova Scotia. His successor as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was Major-General Sir John Colborne, a distinguished officer of the 52nd Regiment, who had done gallant service in the Peninsula, and had fought at Waterloo. He is described by Napier, the historian of the Peninsular War, as having developed "an extraordinary genius for war." After the return of peace he had had some experience in diplomacy, having for some time been placed in charge of the Government in the island of Guernsey. His appointment to the more onerous and responsible post of Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada was heralded as the precursor of better times. It was announced that he had come over charged with instructions to reverse the fatuous policy of his predecessor, and to conduct the administration in accordance with the well understood wishes of the people. It seems tolerably certain that some such general directions as these had actually been given, but great latitude was necessarily left to Sir John himself; and, as after events proved, he was ill fitted for the discharge of such duties as had been entrusted to him. He was destined to furnish, in his own person, a sufficient argument against the absurd system pursued by the Home Government of saddling the colonies with military rulers. That Sir John was an excellent soldier goes without saying. It is certain, too, that he was in the main actuated by upright and honourable motives. But he had been "a man of war from his youth," and his early training and long military career had made him stern and unbending. He had no sympathy with the aspirations of a people who were just beginning to grasp the principles of constitutional liberty, and who saw many things in the body politic which called aloud for reform.

It did not take long for the people of Upper Canada to gauge the character of the new Governor, for he had not been a fortnight in the Province before he had practically allied himself with the Compact. Hardly had he assumed the functions of his office ere a petition, signed by a number of influential inhabitants of York and its neighbourhood, was presented to him by a Committee on behalf of Collins. The facts were set out in detail, and his Excellency was asked to exercise the royal clemency by releasing the prisoner from his melancholy situation. Sir John's reply was non-committal, but not wholly discouraging. It conceded the advantages resulting from a free and well-conducted press, but expressed reverence for trial by jury, and referred to the danger of interfering with the verdicts of juries or the opinions of Judges unless their illegality could be clearly demonstrated. It added, however, that if his Excellency; after inquiring into the case, should come to the conclusion that his interposition was called for, a communication to that effect would be made to the person chiefly concerned.

In the face of this reply, it behooved the prisoner and his friends to wait a reasonable time before taking any further steps. Within the next few days a number of facts came to light which certainly went to show that there were at least good grounds for a new trial. It appeared that John Hayden, one of the jurymen, had been ignorant of the true meaning of the word "malignancy," and had sent out to the Court for Johnson's Dictionary, in order to arrive at a true definition. This indulgence was refused by the Court, and Hayden was constrained to accept the definition of another juror, whereby he was led to believe that the word in question has a much more serious significance than really attaches to it. By this means he had been induced to give his voice for the conviction of the defendant. Two other jurymen,[127] who were servile tools of the Attorney-General, had been actuated by undue prejudice, insomuch that they had expressed a strong pre-determination to convict the defendant. Then, the conduct of Mr. Hagerman, in sitting as a Judge in a case wherein he was personally concerned—it will be remembered that he had been derisively referred to in the report which formed the subject of the indictment—was an infringement of decency, to say nothing of its being a perversion of the letter and spirit of the law. He had also conferred with the Judge by whom the sentence was pronounced as to the measure of punishment to be awarded. But he had not only sat in judgment in his own cause: he had refused to record the finding of the jury, whom he had misled and coerced into bringing in a verdict contrary to what they really intended. Judge Sherwood's conduct had been little better. He had delivered a charge to the jury which practically left them no alternative but to convict, unless they altogether disregarded his counsels. John Carey, editor of the York Observer, who was present on the occasion, testified that the Judge's charge appeared to him to outrage law and common sense.[128] Then, the sentence itself was so grossly out of proportion to the offence as to shock all ideas of justice, and to form a standing menace against the liberty of the press in Upper Canada. Yet Judge Sherwood, in pronouncing it, had expressly stated that it should be light, in consequence of its being awarded for a first conviction. It would be curious to know what punishment he would have awarded if the defendant had been previously convicted on a similar charge.

All these circumstances went far to prove that the defendant had met with considerably more or less than justice. And there were other facts which had an ugly look. The defendant, as already mentioned, was a Roman Catholic; yet, out of a large and respectable population professing the same religious faith, not one was to be found on the panel, although at the Quarter Sessions, held a few days later, the number of Roman Catholics summoned to serve on juries was exceptionally large. The Sheriff who empanelled the jury was a political enemy of the accused. So was each individual member of the Grand Jury who found the true bill against him. So were a large majority of the petty jury by whom he was tried. So was the Attorney-General who prosecuted him. So were the two Judges who presided at the trial. Taken in connection with the specific facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, these matters gave rise to many unpleasant conjectures, and it was no wonder that the public voice exclaimed against the verdict as an unrighteous one. It was no wonder that public meetings were held in some of the rural districts to protest against what was almost universally pronounced to be a tyrannical abuse of the process of the Courts. It was no wonder that hisses and groans were sometimes heard from quiet nooks and corners when the Attorney-General passed along the streets of York. And it was no wonder that, coming, as it did, on the heels of other trials that differed with it only in degree, the case of Francis Collins caused many theretofore loyal subjects to ask themselves whether their loyalty demanded that they should forever continue to bend their necks to the yoke of the oppressor. What was Collins's case to-day might possibly be theirs or their sons' on the morrow.

On the 26th of November Collins sent in to the Lieutenant-Governor a pathetically-worded petition, in which the desolate condition of his young and helpless family was alluded to in brief but moving terms. It set out that, in consequence of his imprisonment, the business whereby he had supported his family was all but ruined, as its success depended solely on his personal exertions. Finally, he prayed to be restored to his liberty. Accompanying the petition were affidavits setting forth the admitted ignorance of one of the jurymen, and the pre-determination of the other two to convict. But the prisoner knocked at the gates of Sir John Colborne's heart in vain. The Lieutenant-Governor was by this time as completely hand and glove with the official party as his predecessor had ever been. Dr. Strachan and John Beverley Robinson managed him with great skill, and, by dint of much seeming deference, had him under complete control. Without being in the least aware of it, he was clay in the hands of the potter, who moulded him at will. As well might poor Collins have appealed for mercy to a half-famished tiger of the jungle as to these two Provincial representatives of law and gospel. His memorial, dated "York Gaol, November 26th, 1829," was not replied to until more than three weeks had elapsed, and when the answer came its contents indicated perfect callousness to the prisoner's unhappy condition. He was curtly informed that the Lieutenant-Governor could not think it right to comply with the petition, but that on the expiration of the specified term of imprisonment, any application which he might desire to make would be taken into consideration.

From this time forward the prisoner seems to have resigned himself to his fate, although his friends did not relax their exertions on his behalf. It seemed useless to apply for a new trial, as the application would have to be made to either Sherwood or Hagerman, from neither of whom could he hope to obtain justice. The Freeman continued to make its appearance, although its publication was necessarily carried on under great disadvantages. The editor's spirit was by no means broken, and he sent forth from his place of confinement a succession of editorials as bitterly vigorous as any previous efforts of his pen. He also wrote a series of open letters addressed to the Attorney-General, in which that official's career, from his infancy onwards, was reviewed with caustic bitterness.[129] These letters were published in successive numbers of the Freeman, and must be presumed to have been a source of great annoyance to the gentleman to whom they were directed. Though many of the statements therein were perverse and wilful distortions of facts, there was a large element of truth, and it would not have been easy to expose the falsehood without admitting much that could not be denied. The Attorney-General contemplated another prosecution, but thought better of it—not, it is to be presumed, from any want of vindictiveness, but because he felt that there was a limit to the public endurance, and that that limit had pretty nearly been reached.

In January, 1829, the Collins case was taken into consideration by the Assembly. A Committee was appointed, and a rigid inquiry instituted into some of the most interesting features. Attorney-General Robinson was examined at considerable length. Judges Sherwood and Hagerman were summoned before the Committee, but both of them declined to answer any questions. A good many important facts were elicited, upon the strength of which an Address to his Excellency was passed, recapitulating the circumstances, and praying for a remission of the sentence. The reply was of the same inexorable character as that previously made to Collins's own petition. "It is my anxious wish," was the response of the Lieutenant-Governor, "to render service to the Province, by concurring with the Legislature in everything that can promote its peace, prosperity and happiness; and I regret exceedingly that the House of Assembly should have made an application to me which the obligation I am under to support the laws, and my duty to society, forbid me, I think, to comply with." For the information of the House, his Excellency forwarded a copy of a letter addressed by Justice Sherwood to the Governor's Secretary, embodying certain reasons for the judgment of the Court in the case. The Judge, it will be remembered, refused to assign any such reasons when questioned on the subject by the Committee of the House of Assembly. As to his right to so refuse there can hardly be much difference of opinion, but he would have been more consistent if he had also refused when applied to by the Lieutenant-Governor. After admitting the right to publish fair and candid opinions on the Government and constitution, the Judge declared that if a publisher "steps aside from the high road of decency and peaceable deportment, and adopts a course of public calumny and open abuse against the officers of Government generally, or particularly against the principal law officer of the Crown, in the legal discharge of his duty in the King's Courts, as the defendant did," then it was the Judge's conviction that the publisher so offending should be "punished to that extent which, in human probability, would prevent a recurrence of the offence." And yet this same Judge, in pronouncing sentence, had expressly declared that the sentence should be a light one, as it was the defendant's first offence. The conclusion of the letter showed plainly enough that a conference had taken place between Justices Sherwood and Hagerman before the imposition of the penalty. It proved, indeed, that the sentence was to be considered as the joint sentence of the two Judges. "Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration," it ran, "Mr. Justice Hagerman and myself deemed the sentence which we passed on the defendant both proper and necessary for the public good, and what the case itself required."

Two or three further appeals were made to the Lieutenant-Governor on the prisoner's behalf, all of which proved ineffectual. The matter was really in the hands of the Attorney-General himself, who was inexorable, and would be satisfied with nothing short of the fullest expiation. The Assembly meanwhile did not relax its efforts to obtain a commutation of the sentence. On the 12th of March an address to the King was passed by that body, whereby His Majesty was entreated "to extend to Francis Collins the royal clemency, by remitting the residue of his punishment." Not much was hoped for from this proceeding, as it was felt that the whole influence of the Executive would be put forward against it. The prisoner himself made up his mind to accept the inevitable, and to serve out at least the full term of the sentence imposed. He continued to supply editorial articles for his paper, couched in a strain which seemed to indicate his superiority to circumstances. But his buoyant spirit was measurably tamed by his long imprisonment, and it was remarked that he was never again quite the same man as before. Contrary to his anticipations, the address of the Assembly finally proved effective, and he was permitted to walk forth from the jail a free man. His paper came forth from week to week, but its tone was evidently modified and subdued. Something of the old spirit occasionally flashed forth, but fitfully and transitorily only, like the flicker of a lamp before its extinction. It was clear that the editor had not forgotten the indignity and mental suffering he had undergone, and throughout the remaining years of his life he always dwelt more or less in the shadow of the cold and solitary cell. The records of the jurisprudence of civilized countries contain few modern instances of the exaction of so severe a penalty for so insignificant an offence.

The narrative has no further concern with Francis Collins, except to record that he continued to edit and publish the Freeman down to 1834, when he fell a victim to the cholera invasion by which the Provincial capital was ravaged during that year. He died on the 2nd of September, and the Freeman thenceforth ceased to exist.