RE-PRINTED FROM THE “ CANADA MEDICAL & SURGICAL JOURNAL,” 
JUNE, 1886. 
MEDICAL HISTORY OF LOUIS DAVID RIEL DURING 
HIS DETENTION IN LONGUE POINTE ASYLUM. 
By HENRY HOWARD, M.R.C.S.L., Eng., 
Medical Superintendent, Asylum St. Jean de Dieu, Province of Quebec. 
According to my physical idea, an intellectual, moral man is 
a physiological man, a sane man, and a ram-criminal 
According to my physical idea, all criminal men are either 
insane from pathological defect, or fools from teratological defect, 
of the psycho-physical organization, the materia cogitans. 
According to my close observation of the insane, a large 
majority of them know right from wrong. Therefore, a man’s 
knowledge of his idea of right and wrong is no proof of his sanity. 
The law’s definition of sanity and responsibility is, that a man 
who is a criminal, and knows right from wrong, is a sane man, 
and responsible for his conduct. 
According to my observation, Louis David Riel had a perfect 
knowledge of what he believed to be right and wrong, but being 
a great criminal, and guilty of bad conduct, I considered him a 
fool, in virtue of a teratological defect in his psycho-physical 
organization. 
I think his friends knew my idea of him, and therefore it was 
that they did not bring me to give evidence in his case when he 
was on trial. My evidence would have been that I believed him 
a teratological fool, but that, according to his idea, he knew right 
from wrong. 
As I have already explained, I consider every criminal to be 
either a fool or insane because of pathological or teratological 
defect in their psycho-physical organizations; and most certainly 2 
I have known many persons hung for murder that gave stronger 
proofs of being insane or fools than was given by Louis D. Riel. 
I wish law-makers were physiological men, and were governed 
in making laws by physical science or natural physiology ; then 
all criminals would be recognized as insane or fools. 
As the Dominion Government has been justified in their con- 
duct by a large vote of the House of Commons, and the Pro- 
vincial Government has been justified by a large vote of the 
Legislative Assembly, I shall give the history of Louis D. Riel 
while he was under my care in the asylum of St. Jean de Dieu. 
What I am about to write is the truth. I am not guided by 
politics, nor by nationality or religion. I write it for the sake 
of physical science, and I am writing from notes that I have 
kept that cover nine pages of foolscap. 
Now, in the registry books of Longue Pointe Asylum it is 
recorded that Louis David Riel was admitted into that institution 
under the name of Louis R. David on the 6th of March, 1876, 
and discharged from thence and sent to Beauport on the 15th 
of January, 1877. How that record was made I do not know ? 
The public has accepted it as a true record, and all the 
pubbc-speaking that I have heard of, and all the newspapers 
that I have read, have all been acting under the impression that 
Louis David Riel was in the asylum at Longue Pointe from the 
6th of March, 1876, to the 15th of January, 1877. Now, 
although I blame no one, I have to testify that the record is not 
true. On the contrary, Louis David Riel was discharged from 
the asylum at Longue Pointe and sent to Beauport on the 19th 
of May, 1876. So that instead of being in the asylum for ten 
months, he was only in it two months and thirteen days. During 
that time I was physician to the asylum, having no power in it 
to either admit or discharge patients, but simply prescribe for 
them; yet it was by my advice that Louis David Riel, under 
the name of Louis R. David, was admitted into the asylum by 
the Mother Superior, as a Government patient, on the 6th of 
March, 1876, and by my recommendation to the Hon. Provincial 
Secretary, he was sent to Beauport on the 19th of May, 1876. 
I am particular in pointing out that he was discharged at my 
recommendation, because in all other cases I could discharge no 3 
one, except advised by the Mother Superior, and Dr. Perrault 
had to sign the paper with me. But in this instance there was 
no legal form. 
With the foregoing information, many gentlemen will be won- 
derfully surprised and regret their speech. 
How did Louis D. Riel get admitted into the asylum of St. 
Jean de Dieu at Longue Pointe on the 6th of March, 1876 ? 
On or about the 5th of March, 1876, the Rev. Mother 
Superior came into the office where I was and told me there was 
a gentleman in the other room who desired to get a patient ad- 
mitted, but as there were serious circumstances connected with 
the case, she refused to admit him without my consent, and if I 
would go into the room with her she would introduce me to her 
visitor. I did go with her, and she introduced me to the gentle- 
man who was making the application on behalf of one with whose 
antecedents and present condition he claimed to be entirely 
familiar. There was, at first, some hesitation with reference 
to the identity of the person in question. Finally, it was ad- 
mitted that the individual was Louis Riel: and I was informed 
that his excitement was exhibited chiefly when political subjects 
were introduced, and that his friends were anxious to see him 
safely guarded till they could get him out of the country. His 
eccentricities had already produced such animosity amongst 
certain sections of the people, that fears were entertained for 
his life should he be left at liberty. 
I at once cheerfully consented to the proposition to have 
Louis David Riel admitted into the asylum the following day 
under the name of Louis R. David, and said I would do all I 
could to have his secret kept from sisters, keepers and strangers, 
as if he were insane, and I faithfully did keep my word for 
nearly ten years, always, when spoken to of him, declaring him 
to be as mad as a loon. 
Am I ashamed of what I did ? Not a bit of it. I believed 
him to be guilty of the murder he was accused of, and I believed 
every murderer to be either insane or a fool. The unfortunate 
man was not flying from justice ; he was evading fanatics, that, 
judging them by the press of that day, were prepared to imbrue 
their hands in his blood. Yes, under similar circumstances, I 4 
would conceal him again had he turned up a second time, or 
any other man similarly situated. 
From the foregoing statement it will be seen that Louis D. 
Riel was placed in the asylum of St. Jean de Dieu as one of 
an uncertain condition of mind who required watching, and, for 
the time being, to protect him from his enemies; and knowing 
all these circumstances, I recommended the Rev. Mother 
Superior to admit him into the asylum as an insane man. And 
to be just to the Mother Superior, she let me understand that 
she preferred not to admit him, and she always wished him 
removed. 
HIS ADMISSION. 
On the 6th day of March I was sent for in the part of the 
asylum I was employed, and told to come and sefe Mr. David, 
who had arrived. I went into the room and saw the following 
tableau : A fine, handsome-looking man of about 30 years old, 
standing about the centre of the room; near to his right hand, 
Jean Baptiste, a keeper ; near to his left hand, William , 
a keeper ; standing opposite to him, one of the Sisters, not the 
Mother Superior; and on the floor, his leather valise. 
I was struck with the man’s appearance. He looked an up- 
right, honorable gentleman, and judging him by his appearance, 
I would never have supposed he could be guilty of the crime of 
which he was accused, and, at the moment, I felt great pity for 
him, and considered his friends should have done better for him 
than to send him into an insane asylum. 
I walked directly up to him, to shake hands with him, and 
said, “ I am glad to see you, Mr. David ; my name is Dr. 
Howard.” He started back and said, “ Why do you call me 
David ? My name is Louis David Riel,” and thrusting his hand 
into the side pocket of his coat, he took from it a small prayer- 
book, and opening it at the fly-leaf, handed it to me, saying, 
“ Look at my name there, Louis D. Riel, written by my dear 
sister.” Quick as a flash of lightning, the Sister that was present 
snatched the book from our hands and tore out the fly-leaf, which 
she tore into pieces, saying, “ You are only known here, sir, as 
Mr. David.” A terrible scene followed, and I believe if the 5 
guardians and I were not there, and she had not cleared out of 
the room, he would have torn her in pieces. For a few moments 
I certainly never saw a man more angry. When he calmed 
down, the poor fellow wept, and turning to me, said, “ That was 
a gift given to me by my dear sister on my birthday, and in all 
my wanderings I always kept it near my heart.” I may here 
mention that after this every one in the asylum knew who he 
was, and he always spoke of himself as Louis D. Riel. 
Some time after, the keeper William disappeared from the 
asylum, and John Batiste has lately died of smallpox. 
After the row, Mr Riel went to his room, and from that day 
to the last day I saw him, May 13, 1876, he and I were the 
best of good friends, and I learned to value him highly. As a 
proof that he thought well of me, I beg to quote the following, 
taken from the Montreal Star of August 8, 1885. The article 
is headed “ Riel Loquitur. Tlte last day but one of the trial 
at Regina.”—“ Grateful to my captors for their kindness to me 
at the very time the newspapers were raging to devour me. I 
thank the glorious General Middleton for his testimony that I 
possess ray mental faculties. I felt that God was blessing me 
when these words were pronounced. I was in Beauport Asylum. 
Dr. Roy, over there, knows it, but I thank the Crown for des- 
troying his testimony. I was in the lunatic asylum at Longue 
Pointe, near Montreal, also, and would like to see my old friends, 
Dr. Lachapelle and Dr. Howard, who treated me so charitably. 
Even if I am to die, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that 
I will not be regarded by all men as an insane person.” 
HIS EDUCATION AND RELIGION. 
I found Riel a well read man. He was well posted in both 
Greek and Pagan philosophy, and it appeared to me he respected 
both better than he did Christianity ; and he certainly spoke 
most respectably of Judaism, although he found fault with the 
Jews for having crucified Christ. He certainly ridiculed Pro- 
testantism as all humbug, and was far from considering Catho- 
licity what he considered it should be. He never appeared to 
me to be a sincere Catholic, and he certainly did not speak 
respectfully of bishops, priests, or nuns. 6 
I never saw him contented or happy in the asylum. He 
always spoke to me as one deceived by his friends and forsaken 
by them, and he felt that he was a prisoner, and daily urged 
upon me to procure his release and have him sent out of the 
country. 
Sometimes he made some strange, ridiculous statements, but 
in such a way that I always felt he was simply humbugging, and 
did not believe what he was saying. For example, he at one 
time called himself Christ, that was crucified on Calvary, and 
was at that time undergoing another crucifixion. Another time 
he told me that it was lawful for a man to have at the same time 
three wives. 
I never could satisfy myself thoroughly as to whether this sort 
of talk was not acting a part or an hallucination. He generally 
spoke to me as intelligently as any one could. He was not by 
any means a cheerful man, nor could I say he was sad, con- 
sidering his position and surroundings. In fact I found him a 
loving and loveable man, and a charming man in conversation. 
INCIDENTS WHILE HE WAS IN THE ASYLUM. 
One morning I found him in the cell naked, with the exception 
that he had on a long straight-waistcoat. He began to laugh at 
his ridiculous position. I asked him what was the matter, and 
he told me that his leather valise had been cut open the night 
before and his letters taken out of it, which proved to him that 
it was to rob him of these valuable letters that he was brought 
into the asylum ; that the loss of them was to him the loss of 
friends and their support and protection. He named his friends. 
He told me, when he saw that he was robbed of his letters, he 
was very angry and made a row, and that he was immediately 
seized by the keepers and forced into the straight waistcoat. 
This was a very short time after his admission into the asylum. 
From that time till he left the asylum he was sad, and seemed 
to be very suspicious of every one surrounding him, and particu- 
larly of his friends. He urged me to send him out of the asylum. 
On another occasion, some time after, I found him in a similar 
position, restrained with the straight waistcoat. Before visiting 
him, I was told that while the priest was celebrating mass he 7 
rushed into the church -with a long stick, used in the game of 
pigeon-hole, in his hand, and literally swept the candles, orna- 
ments, etc., with it off the altar. When I visited him he was all 
smiles, and told me he did it to see how the Mother Superior 
would act when he played the brute, as she did not know how 
to act or treat him when he acted as a gentleman. I advised 
him to keep quiet and continue to act the gentleman. 
Soon after this, late in the month of April, I went one morn- 
ing into his room and found him stark naked, standing up against 
the wall with his arms extended as if crucified. He told me he 
wanted the nuns to see him. I told him to go to bed. He did 
so, and spoke to me quite rationally. 
One morning, about the 16th or 17th of May, 1876, I went 
into his room and found him in a great state of anxiety. I had 
never seen him before showing such great fear, nor did I ever 
see him speak or act so intellectually. He declared he was 
afraid of being murdered, and drew my attention to the fact 
that during the night the bars were removed from his window 
that he might try to escape. I looked and saw that the bars 
were removed, and that he could have escaped without any 
trouble. He said, “ If I escaped last night through that window, 
1 would have been murdered. Say nothing about it. I won’t 
speak of it to any one ; but for God’s sake try and get me away.” 
The mother superior had constantly spoken to me to write to 
the Hon. Provincial Secretary to have him removed to Beauport. 
She particularly spoke to me for the last week or ten days, as 
she had heard it reported that the Orangemen of Montreal had 
heard that Riel was in the asylum, and had threatened to come 
down and burn it. 
I did not speak to her of the iron bars being removed, nor of 
my intention, but I wrote a very strong letter to the Hon. Pro- 
vincial Secretary, begging of him to send an order at once to 
have Riel removed to Beauport, for I feared for his life. On 
the 18th of May I shook hands warmly with poor Riel and bid 
him good-bye. On the 19th he departed, and I never saw him 
again. The keeper that placed him on the steamboat for Quebec 
that evening told me nothing more than that he called loudly 
for me when the boat was starting. 8 
What I have written of poor Louis D. Riel I have not written 
for politicians nor for nationalists. I have simply written for the 
sake of imparting knowledge to the physical scientist or natural 
philosopher. I admitted Riel simply to protect him from his 
enemies, and for the same reason I recommended his discharge. 
I suspect his friends knew these facts, and that was why I was 
not brought to give evidence on his trial; because, if I were 
asked, “ Did he know right from wrong ?” I would have been 
obliged to answer “ Yes.” From his own statement on his trial, 
he was pleased to think I did not consider him insane. But I 
did consider him an abnormal man, a man with a teratological 
defect in his psycho-physical organization; and if he was 
guilty of the crime of which he was accused, and I believed he 
was, he was guilty because he was like all other criminals—not 
an intellectual man, a fool, one of the millions of the im- 
moral, criminal fools that I have already written of. 
I found Riel to be a cautious, cunning man, and as responsible 
for his conduct as any other criminal; but I don’t consider any 
criminal responsible for his conduct, for every criminal is such 
because of his abnormal psycho-physical organization. 
While poor Riel was with me in the asylum, I have no recol- 
lection of ever speaking of him to any one but once—to two 
gentlemen, great friends of his, whom I overtook upon the road 
below the toll-gate. They were walking, and told me they were 
going down to see him. I took them down in my carriage. I 
told them he was as mad as a loon. They both laughed at me. 
When I heard poor Riel was hung, I was very, very sorry. 
But I have known other men to have been hung that were greater 
fools than was poor Riel. I don’t believe society should be 
troubled with criminal fools, but I do not believe they should be 
hung, although I see that the House of Commons in England 
has just rejected a motion to abolish capital punishment by a vote 
of 117 to 62. Well done, members of *parliament, who don’t 
know the physical cause of physical defect; who don’t know that 
a man is an immoral criminal because he is not a physiological 
man.