papers.  He is under these circumstances peculiarly open to suspicion.  If the proceeding in question is a usual one, why does he not openly avow it?  If it is unusual or improper, why does he not deny the soft impeachment so much credited both in this country and in his own?  It is really refreshing to contemplate, that Roebuck, after being the paid agent of the Canadian House of Assembly, should have become such a purist as to drag poor Mr. Isaac Butt before the notice of the Commons, and scream for the censure on him on a mere suspicion that he had touched the yellow and handsome gold coins of one of the innumerable Indian princes and rajahs who come to England with complaints of grievances, sometimes real, and sometimes fictitious, against the British Government.

[Footnote A:  Lindsay’s fawning, plastic sycophancy is well known this side the water.  After shrewdly filling his coffers with profits from Northern business-transactions, he now turns about, kicks his old friends, who always half suspected his knavish propensities, bows, cap in hand, to visionary cotton-bales, and hopes to turn some honest pounds, shillings, and pence by advocating the slave-drivers’ rebellion.  A “fool’s gudgeon” will surely reward his laborious endeavors for Southern gold, that article growing beautifully less every day.]

During the period of the “paid agency” Roebuck was tolerably industrious with his pen; but in literature and journalism he proved his utter incapacity for joining in any combined action.  Such was his dogged self-assertion and indomitable egotism that none of the ordinary channels would answer his purpose; and so he issued a series of political papers, entitled “Pamphlets for the People,” to which the curious may sometimes refer, but which have now lost all their significance and interest.  His quarrels with editors and publishers were notorious; and an altercation with Mr. Black, the well-known editor of the “Morning Chronicle,” eventuated in a duel so bloodless as to be ridiculous.  David’s pebble did not reach Goliath, and Goliath was equally merciful to David.  In these pamphlets he violently assailed the whole body of editors, sub-editors, reporters, etc., of most of the papers of any note.  And the more accustomed he became to the House of Commons, the greater liberties did he take with the conventional fairness and courtesy of debate.  His personality and scurrility were so indiscriminating and excessive that he was perhaps at this time the most unpopular member of the House.

In 1837 he lost his election for Bath, but was reelected in 1841.  In a subsequent contest at Bath he was successfully opposed by Lord Ashley, the present Earl of Shaftesbury.  On this occasion he exhibited even more than his usual bad temper and bad taste.  He declined to accept Lord Ashley’s proffered hand; and in the chagrin and vexation occasioned by unexpected defeat he uttered a rabid invective against the Non-Conformist ministers of the place, to whose