e Colonial Advocate_, was produced for the purpose of being
placed within the hollow of the foundation-stone. The vessel and its
contents, enveloped in an otter's skin, were placed by Mr. Mackenzie in
the cavity, the spectators looking on in quiet approval. The stone was
then touched with the trowel, the deposit was covered up, and the rite
was complete. An account of the proceedings found its way into the
newspapers, and Sir Peregrine Maitland learned, to his intense disgust,
of the part which Mackenzie had been permitted to take in the ceremony.
He sent for Colonel Thomas Clark, one of the commissioners appointed by
Parliament to superintend the construction of the column, and, in a
voice of undisguised passion, gave orders to that gentleman that the
glass vessel should forthwith be disinterred, and the copy of the
_Advocate_ removed therefrom. The mandate was of course obeyed. As the
column had by this time reached a considerable height, the excavation
was no slight task. Mr. Mackenzie himself, who personally attended at
what he called the "premature resurrection," claimed and obtained
possession of the number of the paper which had caused so much
unnecessary labour and ill-temper.

From this time forward there was almost incessant warfare between Mr.
Mackenzie and the official party: warfare sometimes suppressed,
sometimes altogether concealed for a brief season, but always ready to
break out upon the slightest pretext--sometimes, indeed, without any
apparent pretext at all.

Soon after the _Advocate's_ removal to York, and not long before the
opening of the Legislature, the Honourable D'Arcy Boulton, one of the
puisne judges, laid himself open to attack by conduct of the most
reprehensible kind. In a case tried before him, in which his son, the
Solicitor-General, appeared on behalf of the Crown, the Judge displayed
such gross partiality that one cannot read the report of the
proceedings, even as chronicled by one of the organs of the Government,
without mingled feelings of wonder and disgust. At the present day such
conduct on the part of an occupant of the judicial bench would bring
down upon his head the animadversions of the press of the whole country.
Sixty years ago it passed without editorial remark from any of the
journals of the time, with the single exception of the _Advocate_, which
certainly used some very plain words in characterizing the Judge's
behaviour. It appealed to the Legislature to address the