w 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