warted the government, they were
dismissed, and if they annoyed the people they were impeached. Another
complaint was made against Mr. Chief Justice Monk. He, it was alleged
by the family of the late Francois Corbeil, had exceeded his authority,
by issuing a warrant for the arrest and imprisonment of Corbeil, on a
charge of treasonable practices, well knowing that such changes were
notoriously false, and, by so doing, had accelerated or caused the
death of Corbeil, the disease of which he died having been contracted
while in prison. Mr. Samuel Sherwood also complained, on his own
behalf, against the Chief Justice of Montreal. It appeared that he had
been prosecuted and imprisoned for libel, in having burlesqued the
pamphlet published and circulated by the Chief Justices in Montreal and
Quebec, to show to the public and their friends that the impeachments
against them had fallen through. At the trial for the libel, Mr. Chief
Justice Monk presided. He seemed to be both prosecutor and judge. The
jury box was packed. The court was specially held. The indictment
against Sherwood had been framed on suspicion. In the pretended libel
the name of James Monk was thirty times mentioned, and yet James Monk,
in the character of Chief Justice, sat upon the Bench. He took a lively
interest in the prosecution. He had fiercely assailed a member of the
Bar, who had smiled during the reading of the indictment, and
threatened to remember the smile in his address to the jury. Such an
example of a judge, sitting in his own cause, was not even afforded by
Scraggs or Jefferies. Mr. Sherwood had been falsely imprisoned,
arbitrarily held to excessive bail, his liberties, as a British
subject, violated, and his privileges as a member of the Assembly had
been set at nought. The petition was referred to a select committee,
and no more heard of. Yet it had an effect. Chief Justice Monk was
compelled to explain and to defend himself.

There was yet another similar matter to be proceeded with. There was
the revival of the impeachments to be taken in hand. The House had been
clumsily baulked in their attempt to remonstrate with the Regent
concerning his will and pleasure, as far as his royal will and pleasure
related to the impeachments of Chief Justices Sewell and Monk, and
there seemed to be a _sub rosa_ disposition to get rid of the
disagreeable affair by management. Mr. Stuart, keen-sighted as he was,
both saw and felt that the tools, with which he