any person or persons for any crime "—which must include the crime of treason.

Sub-section 10 provides that "any person arraigned for treason or felony may challenge peremptorily and without cause not more than six jurors." It was remarked that this is the only mention of treason in the act, but it was the only occasion for its being specially mentioned.

In view of the peculiar right of challenge in a case of treason, under the laws of England, it was important to place it beyond doubt, by special mention, that in a case of treason, as in any other case, the number of peremptory challenges was to be limited to six. The wording of the sub-section may not be strictly correct, as not recognizing that treason is a felony, but the sub-section is not on that account of any less importance as showing the intention to give to the court jurisdiction over a charge of treason.1

The third and principal point relied upon was clearly stated and ably examined in the opinion of Taylor, J.:

It was contended by the appellant's counsel that the Imperial statutes relating to treason, the 25 Edw. III, c. 2; 7 Wm. III, c. 3; 36 Geo. III, c. 7; and 57 Geo. III, c. 6, which define what is treason, and provide the mode in which it is to be tried, including the qualifications of jurors, their number, and the method of choosing them, are in force in the Northwest Territories. And it was argued, that in legislating for the Northwest Territories, the people of which are not represented in the Dominion Parliament, that Parliament exercises only a delegated power, which must be strictly construed and cannot be exercised to deprive the people there of rights secured to them as British subjects by Magna Charta, or in any way alter these old statutes to their prejudice. The question then is, What powers of legislation with reference to the Northwest Territories have been conferred upon the Dominion Parliament by Imperial authority? In the exercise of that authority, whatever it may be, it is not exercising a delegated authority. To the extent of the powers conferred upon it, the Dominion Parliament exercises not delegated but plenary powers of legislation, though it cannot do anything beyond the limits which circumscribe these powers. When acting within them, as was said by Lord Selborne in The Queen vs. Burah, L. R. 3 App. Ca., at p. 904, speaking of the Indian Council, it is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation as large and of the same nature as those of that Parliament itself. That the

1 Queen vs. Riel [Can. Pub. Doc.], pp. 194 et seq.

Dominion Parliament has plenary powers of legislation in respect to all matters entrusted to it was held by the Supreme Court in Valin vs. Langlois, 3 Sup. C. R. I, and City of Fredericton vs. The Queen, 3 Sup. C. R. 505. So also, the judicial committee of the Privy Council have held, Hodge vs. The Queen, L. R. 9 App. Ca. 117, that the local legislatures when legislating upon matters within section 92 of the British North America Act, possess authority as plenary and as ample, within the limits prescribed by that section, as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its power possessed and could bestow.

The learned judge then recites the passage of the Rupert's Land Act (31 and 32 Vict. c. 105), providing for the temporary government of the Hudson's Bay Territory after its annexation to the Dominion; and the British North America Act of 1871 (34 and 35 Vict. c. 28), confirming the foregoing act. In the first of these acts occur the following words:

And thereupon it shall be lawful for the Parliament of Canada, from the date aforesaid, to make, ordain and establish within the land and territory, so admitted as aforesaid, institutions and ordinances, and to constitute such courts and officers as may be necessary for the peace, order and good government of Her Majesty's subjects and others therein.

And in the second of these acts, section 4 runs as follows:

The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make provision for the administration, peace, order and good government of any territory not for the time being included in any province.

He then concludes:

Acting under the authority given in the most ample manner by these Acts of the Imperial Parliament, and, as it seems to me, in the exercise not of a delegated authority, but of plenary powers of legislation, the Dominion Parliament enacted the Northwest Territories Act, 1880 (43 Vict. c. 25), which provides, among other things, for the trial of offences committed in these Territories in the manner there pointed out.1

As this decision was confirmed on appeal by the Privy Council, the case of The Queen vs. Ricl puts at rest all doubts that may have existed as to the plenary authority of the Dominion

1 Queen vs. Louis Riel [Can. Pub. Doc.], pp. 183 et seq.

Parliament. The necessary inference from the decision of Riel's case, and those cited to sustain it, is that the Canadian Parliament is a legislature of limited jurisdiction, and not of enumerated powers. The distinction between these two kinds of bodies is, that a legislature of limited power is a dependent legislature which has sovereign authority over all subjects of legislation, but is limited in the extent to which it can exercise those powers by such restrictions as are inherent in its subordinate relation to the paramount legislature; whereas a legislature of enumerated powers is a dependent legislature which has sovereign authority over certain enumerated subjects of legislation, but all matters not expressly mentioned or necessarily implied in the enumeration are reserved to and reside in the paramount legislature.

There is another point of peculiar importance suggested by the decision in Riel's case. The crime of high treason is peculiarly an offence against the sovereign power of the state. To vest in the colonial legislature the power to define and regulate the trial of treasonable offences may sooner or later lead to a conflict between the colony and the home government. The Canadian parliament, in the plenitude of its authority, may choose some day to make it practically impossible to convict of treason in cases which England may consider highly treasonable; for it is just as easy to pass a law making it difficult to convict as it is to enact one making it facile. It is quite true, as Judge Killam said in his opinion in Riel's case:

Even jurisdiction to declare what shall be and what shall not be acts of treason, when committed within Canada against the person of the Sovereign herself, might safely be committed to the Parliament of Canada when the Sovereign is a part of Parliament, and has also power of disallowance of Acts, even after they have been assented to in her name by the Governor General.1

But despite this fact, the way is left open for Canada to initiate a law to which the royal assent cannot be given without practically severing the bond of allegiance uniting Canada to Eng

1 Queen vs. Louis Riel [Can. Pub. Doc.], p. 194.

land, and from which the royal assent cannot be withheld without precipitating a serious conflict-perhaps a revolution. Then indeed the Riel decision would play an important role.

The outlook for the Half-breeds is not altogether promising until they become less nomadic in their habits. Great discretion must be exercised by the government in its land policy. In giving the Half-breeds letters patent to their holdings, care must be taken on the one hand not to make them so uncertain as to discourage improvements on the property, and on the other hand not to make them too easily assignable to land speculators on the lookout for opportunities to defraud the improvident Halfbreeds. I believe the Half-breeds of the great "fertile belt " will become an industrious farming population, and add great strength and importance to Canada. I do not believe that they will be forced again to armed rebellion for a redress of grievances; but I am quite sure that their political struggles will not be ended until they are numerous enough and sufficiently capable of self-government to be organized into a province of Canada. Since the close of Riel's second rebellion, measures have been set in motion to accomplish this; and last November the Northwest Council, which governs the affairs of the unorganized territory, after one week's deliberation agreed upon the distribution of seats. Under this adjustment Assiniboia will have 13 members, Saskatchewan 4, and Alberta 8.

When this change is made, and the Northwest Territory becomes a self-governing province, the cause for rebellions among the Half-breeds, we may hope, will be forever removed.

THOMAS D. RAMBAUT.

SOURCES AND LITERATURE.

ADAM, G. MERCER. The North-West: its History and its Troubles. Toronto, 1885.

ANONYMOUS. The Gibbet of Regina, by one who knows. New York, 1886. The Story of a Dead Monopoly. The Cornhill Magazine, August, 1870. BOULTON, Major CHARLES ARKELL. Reminiscences of the North-West Rebellions. Toronto, 1886.

CAMPBELL, Sir ALEXANDER, Minister of Justice. Report of the Case of Riel. (Can. Pub. Doc.) Ottawa, 1885.

Toronto, 1886.

Canadian Almanac. The Copp Clark Co'y, Limited. Canadian Public Documents. The Queen vs. Louis Riel. Ottawa, 1886. CARTWRIGHT. Collection of Cases under the British North America Act. Debates in House of Commons, Canada. Especially Speeches of Mr. Blake, ex-Minister of Justice, and Mr. Thompson, present Minister of Justice, and Mr. Rykert, M. P. for St. Catharines.

MARTIN, R. M. Hudson's Bay Territories, etc., and Chartered Rights, etc. London, 1849.

MCDOUGALL, Hon. WILLIAM. Eight Letters in Reply to Official Pamphlet. Toronto, 1870.

MELGUND, Lord, Military Secretary to the Governor-General. The Recent Rebellion in North-West Canada. The Nineteenth Century, August, 1885. MULVANEY, CHarles Pelham. History of the North-West Rebellion. Toronto, 1885.

Prerogative Rights in Canada. Ottawa, 1881.

New York Colonial Documents.

RUNDALL, THOMAS. Voyages towards the North-West, 1496 to 1631. Hakluyt Society Publication.

Statesman's Year Book.

Statutes, Papers, and Documents bearing on the Discussion respecting the Northern and Western Boundaries of the Province of Ontario. Canadian Public Documents.

Besides the foregoing, I have consulted the files of various newspapers of Canada and of the United States, particularly the Toronto Globe and the New York Herald. I am also indebted to various Canadian barristers and public men for valuable information given in interviews and letters.