this sympathetic relationship for personal and party advantage. It is true that only thirteen members of the House of Commons voted to strike out the sum of $1,460,000 put into the Supply Bill to meet the costs of the Red River expedition, and to open up the western country. But this vote did not represent the real state of feeling in Quebec, nor stay the agitation for clemency for Riel and his associates. There is hardly any doubt that Sir George Cartier was a determined champion of Riel in the Cabinet, and it seems clear that he sought a way to baulk the Wolseley expedition. In the general election of 1872, Cartier was defeated in Montreal East, and aside from other exceptional influences contributing to that result, it is believed that the militia vote was cast for his opponent in almost a solid body in protest against his attitude towards the Canadian militia, his excessive consideration for Riel and his allies, and his ill-concealed opposition to the employment of force against the insurgents. It was, however, mainly due to the active intervention of Bishop Bourget and his ecclesiastical subordinates that Cartier was beaten. This intervention was provoked partly by his alliance with the Sulpicians against the Bishop's project to divide the old parish of Notre Dame, of which the disciples of St. Sulpice were pastors by right of their charter, and partly by resentment at Sir John Macdonald's refusal to disallow the New Brunswick School Bill of 1871, by which the

separate school system of that province was abolished in law, even if it still exists in practice. Cartier was afterwards returned for the western constituency of Provencher, which contained the bulk of the French population of Manitoba, and Riel's name was signed to one of the telegrams of congratulation he received from his new parliamentary borough. Ill-health, however, forced him to go abroad, and he died in England in May, 1873. In the general election of January 22nd, 1874, which brought the Liberal party into office, Riel was elected as his successor in the representation of Provencher. Notwithstanding that he was now under indictment in Manitoba for the murder of Scott, he came to Ottawa and managed to sign the roll of the Commons and subscribe the oath. When his presence at the capital became known, a warrant for his arrest was procured, but it is doubtful if it was intended to be executed. If he had directly invited arrest, he would hardly have been accommodated. There was general suspicion, and possibly in high quarters particular knowledge, that his freedom had been at least equivocally guaranteed by the Queen's ministers, and that the pledges of amnesty, if not legally conclusive, were too clear and too direct to be lightly violated. But it was at least permissible to question his right to sit in Parliament, and necessary to make some concession to public opinion. Besides, the Conservative party had passed into opposition, and a subject which had

given infinite trouble to the Conservative leaders was now available for the harassment of the Liberal party. Accordingly, on March 31st, 1874, Mr. Mackenzie Bowell moved that Riel be ordered to attend in his place in Parliament on the next day. As he failed to appear, he was expelled two weeks afterwards by a vote of 124 to 68, and a new writ issued for Provencher.1

1 The principal sources of this chapter are Hansard; the newspapers and pamphlets of the time; "Canada under the Administration of the Earl of Dufferin," by Dr. George Stewart; "The Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay Company," by Dr. George Bryce; the "History of Canada," by Dr. W. H. Withrow; "The Great Company," by Beckles Willson; Pope's "Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald," and the Buckingham-Ross "Life of Alexander Mackenzie."

IT

CHAPTER VIII

THE AMNESTY

was on the question of Riel's expulsion that

Mr. Laurier first addressed the House of Commons in English. The main issue to be determined was whether or not Riel had received an explicit and unconditional promise of amnesty. There was abundant evidence to support this contention. In March, 1870, Mgr. Taché, professing to speak for both the Canadian and Imperial Governments, gave Riel an assurance of amnesty wide enough to cover the murder of Scott and all other offences committed during the outbreak. In June, 1870, Richot, Black, and Scott, who laid the grievances of the settlers before the federal Ministers, assured Mgr. Taché that they had received an equally definite promise of complete amnesty for Riel and his associates. A letter from Sir George Cartier to Mgr. Taché confirmed the promise of amnesty. Parliament was also bound to consider the acceptance by Mr. Archibald of the services of Riel and Lepine when Manitoba was threatened with a Fenian invasion, and the Governor's public recognition of their timely and useful work in organizing the people for defence. There were three motions before the House. Mr. Mackenzie Bowell moved

for Riel's immediate expulsion. Mr. Holton moved to defer action until a report on the question of amnesty could be had from the committee which had just been appointed to inquire into the causes of the Red River troubles. Mr. Mousseau moved for immediate and unconditional amnesty.

Mr. Laurier's speech was made in support of the Holton amendment. He said that amendment laid down the only course that the House should pursue, and that he would be guilty of an act of cowardice if for any motive whatever he allowed himself to be turned away from the defence of the opinions which he regarded as the soundest and safest on the subject. He said that between Riel and himself there was no bond of sympathy. The House was called upon to exercise strictly judicial functions. There was no proof before Parliament of an indictment against the member for Provencher. It was impossible, therefore, to pretend that he was a fugitive from justice. A warrant that was not executed was no legal proof of an indictment. He pointed out that over and over again Riel had claimed that the old Administration had promised him an amnesty, that this claim was repeated and emphasized by his friends and sympathizers, and that ministers then in office could not be induced to confirm or deny these statements. If Riel had this promise of amnesty in the Queen's name for all acts committed in Manitoba, as head of the provisional government, it was not reasonable that