xecution was granted. Sir John Macdonald
sent to Regina two medical men, who, with the surgeon of the North-West
Mounted Police, were instructed to examine into Riel's mental
condition. They reported that, except in regard to certain religious
matters on which he appeared to hold eccentric and foolish views, he
was quite able to distinguish between right and wrong and that he {129}
was entirely responsible for his actions. On November 16, 1885, Riel
paid upon the scaffold the last penalty for his crimes.

During Riel's imprisonment Sir John Macdonald received from him several
letters. From various other quarters he was informed of the
blasphemies, outrages, and murders of which Riel had been guilty.
There were many petitions, some for justice, others for mercy, chiefly
from people living in the eastern provinces. These, however, counted
for little, since for the most part they merely represented the
political or racial sympathies of the writers. But there are among
Macdonald's papers some original statements in respect to Riel of the
highest importance, from those of his fellow-countrymen who best knew
him. The Catholic missionaries living in the districts specially
affected by the rebellion--St Laurent, Batoche, and Duck Lake--in a
collective letter dated March 12, 1885, denounced in the strongest
language 'the miscreant Louis David Riel' who had led astray their
people. The venerable bishop of St Albert, while pleading for Riel's
dupes, had no word of pity for the 'miserable individual' himself.
Under date July 11, 1885, the bishop writes thus to Sir John Macdonald:

{130}

These poor halfbreeds would never have taken up arms against the
Government had not a miscreant of their own nation [Riel], profiting by
their discontent, excited them thereto. He gained their confidence by
a false and hypocritical piety, and having drawn them from the
beneficent influence of their clergy, he brought them to look upon
himself as a prophet, a man inspired by God and specially charged with
a mission in their favour, and forced them to take up arms.

Riel's own letters disclose no appreciation on his part of the enormity
of his offences, or of the grave peril in which he stood. The whole
collection produces a most unfavourable impression of the man, and one
rises from its examination with a wish that those who were wont to
proclaim Riel a patriot and hero could see for themselves what manner
of man he really was. Th