The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-10-17 00:00:00

THE CANADIAN REBELLION AND THE
CASE OF LOUIS RIEL.

Mr. C. Fitzpatrick, the Canadian advocate who de-
fended Louis Riel and the other Manitoba rebels, has
by his London agent preeented a petition on behalf
of Riel for leave to appeal against the decision of the
judges at Manitoba. The appeal of Riel to the Court
at Winnipeg was in the following terms:
"To his Excellency the Governor-General of the
Dominion of Canada in Council.
"The petition of Louis Riel, now under sentence of
death at Regina, in the North-West territories of
Canada, respectively represents: That at Regina afore-
said, on Saturday, the '2sth day of July last, he was
found guilty of the crime of treason, and sentenced to
be hung on the 18th day of September inst. (1885).
That said petitioner was tried for said crime before a
stipendiary magistrate and a justice of the peace,
with the intervention of a jury of six persons, in the
North-West territories of the Dominion of
Canada. That he is desirous of making
application to the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty in Council for special leave to appeal
from the :aid sentence and judgment. That such ap-
peal is rendered necessary by reason of the fact that
the North-West Territories Act, 1880,' under the
provisions of which your petitioner was tried, pro-
vides, Section 77, 'A person convicted of any offence
punishable by death may appeal to the Court of
Queen's Bench of Manitoba, which shall have juris-
diction to confirm the conviction or to order a new
trial, and the mode of such appeal and all particulars
relating thereto shall be determined from time to
time by ordinance of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council.' That your petitioner inserted his appeal to
the said Court cf Queen's Bench, Manitoba, as he
did before the magistrate, and asked that the same be
recorded. That your petitioner denied the right of
the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba to proceed
with his case, or to take in any manner cognieanee of
the merits of the appeal until the mode of such appeal
and all the particulars relating thereto had been deter-
mined by ordinance of the Lieut.-Governor in Council,
as required by said statute. And your petitioner
further specially alleged that there is no such ordi-
nance, and that until the same is made the said Court
of Queen's Bench could not (1) assume that the
alleged record was the true record; (2) apply to the
prisoner for his grounds of error; (3) make any judg-
ment which could be lawfully registered in Regina ;•
(4) generally take special cognisance of the matter.
That, as the appeal was both in law and fact, it was
essential that a true copy of the record be sent up to
the said Court of Queen's Bench. That, notwith-
standing the protests of your petitioner's counsel, the
said Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba, proceeded to
hear the said appeal in his absence, and confirmed the
sentence aforesaid. That by reason of the neglect of
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to pass an ordi-
nance as required by said Section 77, your said peti-
tioner has been deprived of his statutory appeal. That
your petitioner has caused to be prepared a petition
for leave to appeal to the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty in Council, a copy whereof is herewith for-
warded for the information of your Excellency in
Council. Wherefore your petitioner prays that such
steps maybe adopted as to law and justice appertain
to afford your petitioner the necessary time to present
his said appeal to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty
in Council. And your petitioner as in duty bound
will ever pray.
"Louts RrEL (per C. Fitzpatrick, counsel)."
The judges on September 10 unanimously dismissed
the appeal, and Riel was sentenced to be executed on
the 18th of September. Thereupon Riel's counsel
applied to the Governor-General for a respite, so that
their client's case mieht be laid before the British
Privy Council. The reasons for asking for a respite
were the want of jurisdiction of the judges, and also
Riel's alleged insanity. The French Canadians were
very angry at the condemnation of Riel, and exertesi
themselves in every way to get the decision upset.
They started a Riel Defence Fnnd, which was liberally
subscribed to, and Messrs. Lemieux and Fitzpatrick
were sent to England to support the appeal before the
Privy Council. The prisoner was reprieved till the 16th
inst. The London agents of Riel's counsel have lodged
their petition, as already mentioned. He is stated to
base his right to appeal on the ground that
the stipendiary magistrate and justice had no juriss
diction to try him for the crime of high treason; that
if they had jurisdiction in any ease of treason, there
was not in his case any indictment preferred by any
grand jury, or inquisition found by any coroner's
inquest, against him; that the evidence at the trial
Was not taken down in writing, as directed by the
statute in that behalf. On his appeal to the Court of
Queen's Bench Riel says he was not permitted to be
present, nor were any of the papers or the record pro-
perly before the Court. The petitioner then declares
that the trial and the circumstances out of which it
arose are deemed by the people of Canada to be
matters of no ordinary importance; that they have
divided the population into two opposing parties,
and it is essential, not only upon these grounds, but
also from the fact that a large number of trials arising
out of the same circumstances are being had before
the same functionaries, that the question raised by
the petition should be adjudicated upon and settled.
It will be remembered that about three months ago
the question of the right of appeal in colonial criminal
cases came before the Privy Council on the petition
of a convict named Conner, who had been condemned
to death for a murder in Manitoba. But in that case
the question was not argued, as Connor was hanged on
the day fixed fm hearing his petition, and which had
only been lodged the day previous. The reasons for
asking for leave to appeal were very similar to those
in Riel's case, and the Lords of the Council who
attended to hear the petition intimated that they had
thought it to be their duty to examine very carefully
the statements made in the petition, and they came to
the conclusion that the reasons disclosed were not
primdfacie such as would induce them to grant leave
to appeal.