n 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."

[Sidenote: 1828.]

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 L118 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