418 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III 
The other case cited by Sir J. Thompson also does not 
really support his contention. It is that of Riel v. The Queen} 
decided in 1885 by the Judicial Committee. Sir J. Thompson 
summarizes the case as follows in paragraphs 38 and 39 
of his report :— 
There had been three Imperial Statutes for the regulation 
of trial for offences in Rupert’s Land, since known as the 
North-West Territories of Canada. The Statutes of Canada 
made other provision inconsistent with these statutes, and the 
conviction of the prisoner had taken place under the Statutes 
of Canada. The Lords of the Judicial Committee declined 
to admit an appeal, entertaining no doubt as to the correct- 
ness of the conviction. 
But reference to the report of the case will show that the 
position was quite otherwise. Riel was tried for the crime 
of treason 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, and 
having been found guilty was sentenced to death. The Court 
of Queen’s Bench for the Province of Manitoba, on appeal, 
confirmed the sentence. The petitioner applied for special 
leave to appeal on the ground that the Stipendiary Magistrate 
and the Justice had no jurisdiction to try him for treason ; 
if they had, there were errors in procedure which vitiated 
the trial ; viz. there was no indictment preferred by a 
Grand Jury, no coroner’s inquisition, and the evidence was 
not taken down in writing as required by Statute. It was 
argued for the petitioner that the Statute under which he 
was tried (a Canadian Statute, 43 Vict. c. 25, 5. 76), made 
under the authority of the Imperial Act 34 & 35 Vict. c. 28, 
was ultra vires the Legislature. Treason was in a peculiar 
manner an offence against the State, and the Imperial 
Parliament could not have intended that the Dominion 
Parliament should legislate upon it to the extent of altering 
the statutory right of a man put upon his trial regarding it. 
The petitioner was entitled to all the rights which he possessed 
under English law unless they had been specially taken away. 
' 10 App. Cas. 675.