his personal servant is in possession of the house. It is not the province of the Jury to say that he was not in actual possession because only his agent or his servant was there. We reserve that as a question of law for the Judge to decide.

On section 96,

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-Is this not carrying the penalty for prizefighting too far?

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-They fight just over the border.
Committee rose and reported progress.

TUESDAY, 19 May 1892.

(In the Committee)

On section 104.

Mr MULOCK.-This clause is unnecessarily severe The offence consists in having in one's possession something dutiable, and for which one has not paid duty, and having at the same time an offensive weapon. It is argued in favor of this clause that we must as-ume that the weapon is in the possession of the accused for the unlawful But it is not stated purpose of enabling him to defeat the revenue. here to be necessary to show th t the weapon is in his possession for that purpose; but if the two things happen together that a man has in his possession, say only a cigar that was dutiable but which had not paid duty, and at the same time an offensive weapon, he is liable to ten years imprisonment Senator Loughead in the committee stated that it was the practice in the North-West for the people to carry weapons. That is an offence under the law, for which there is an appropriate remedy. If in the North-West it should happen that a person who carried a weapon for defensive purposes, which appears there to be almost as necessary a part of a man's apparel as his hat or boots, happened to be found in possession of some article that should have paid duty, Inland or Customs, we are bound to come to the conclusion that he has the weapon for the purpose of committing violence on some person who would try to seize the contraband article in his possession. I think the section should be modified, and it ought to be shown that the offensive weapon was in his possession for the purpose of enabling the accused to retain possession of the contraband article, or for the purpose of enabling him to defeat the revenue.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The section is the present law, excepting that we have altered the life penalty to ten years imprisonment as the maximum. It is based on the principle that a man who carries a deadly weapon carries it for some purpose, which is certainly to defend himself and the property which he has in his possession, if it be not for a worse object-aggression on some one else.

The property in his possession in that case is property which he has in violation of the law, that is contraband goods, liable to seizure and forfeiture. Under these circumstances, if it be not made highly penal for a smuggler to carry arms, the Officers of the law have no protection for their lives, because smugglers always will carry arms

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)—We have already provided for the case of a man who merely carries a deadly weapon. If a person carrying a weapon at the same time has in his possession goods which he knows to have been smuggled, it is right that he should be punished severely, but the question is whether under this section a person having goods in his possession, not knowing them to be liable to seizure, might not fall into the meshes of the law.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.—I am willing to adopt an amendment that the party should know the goods are liable to seizure.

On section 105,

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)—That ought not to extend to a man having a pistol in his possession in his own house.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-All these sections with regard to carrying weapons are, I admit, severe, and it is the only way to prevent the carrying of weapons for offensive purposes.

I do not think there is any case in which a person would carry arms in his own house, unless he had reason to fear assault or injury to his family or himself, and that case is provided for. Even though he should carry them in his own house without necessity, the law is not likely to be enforced unless there is some special reason for it.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-I believe that the section should only apply to persons carrying arms in public places.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-This has been the law for a long time, and we have never heard any objection to it.

On section 108,

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.—The object of this section is to punish any one who playfully points a weapon at another. Of course, if it were pointed with the intention of doing injury, the offence would come under other sections. But when one playfully points a weapon at another, it is intended to make the punishment the same, whether the weapon is loaded or unloaded.

On section 110.

Mr. WHITE (Shelburne).—Why should this section apply only to seaport towns or cities ?

these

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-That is where seamen carry knives in pursuance of their occupation. But this is to prevent people carrying them.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)-It has been found very dangerous in seaport towns to allow seamen to carry sheath knives at all when ashore. I thought this was to prevent seamen from carrying weapons at all.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-So it is, unless engaged in his lawful trade or calling.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-This will only apply to seaport towns. This will allow sailors to go armed in seaport towns, but nobody else shall.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-It will forbid any one carrying a sheath knife unless in pursuit of his lawful calling as a seaman or rigger.

Mr. DICKEY.-This is really an exception to the section we have just passed. Section 109 will not apply to seamen and riggers in the lawful exercise of their calling.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-There is nothing about a sheath knife in 109.

Mr. DICKEY.-If a sheath knife is not covered by 109, I may carry a sheath knife and it might be just as dangerous as a bowie knife.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).—It certainly seems to me that the intention is to confine the exception to the seaport towns.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I agree with you there.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-If the object is to apply the clause to others as well as seamen it ought to apply everywhere.

Section postponed.

On section 122.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)-Whatever reason there may have been, parts of the United Kingdom for enacting provisions of this kind, aimed at secret societies formed for the purpose of undermining the Government of the country.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The Hon. Gentleman will find every lawful case covered by the sub-section.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).—I do not think we should legislate in this way. The Government is not now like the Grand Llama, a sacred institution, which the people worship. The Government are regarded, now, as trustees for the whole nation, and like other trustees are subject to criticism and examination into their conduct, and condemnation of their conduct if not deserving of approval. Every department of the Government, every person connected with it is subject to adverse criticism. This section goes to the full extent of asserting the doctrine of high prerogative which was entertained at one time, when it was supposed that the Sovereign possessed certain

powers altogether independent of any compact with the nation, and when it was assumed that the business of the people was to pay their taxes and keep quiet, if properly protected by the law in the exercise of their private rights. This section is not legislation by free men for the purpose of maintaining popular liberties, but legislation to restrain those liberties, to prevent criticism and to punish men for criticising the conduct of the Administration. It is only so long as the yoke of Government and of law does not chafe those who are seeking to maintain their rights that they will contentedly submit to the law, and the strength of the law and the disposition of the community to observe it, depends largely upon that principle. This section could only be free from danger to the community by remaining a dead letter upon the Statute-book.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-There is not a word which restricts, in the slightest degree, any comment upon the Government or upon any department of it, or on the way in which public affairs are administered. On the contrary, it is distinctly provided that it shall not be sedition,

"(b.) To point out errors or defects in the Government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any Legislature, or in the administration of Justice; or to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state."

That covers the case of every man in the country who seeks even to change entirely the constitution or the administration of the country, or of any of its departments, by any lawful means whatever that can be devised. The one thing which is forbidden by it is the treasonable attempt, not against the person of the Sovereign, but to excite her subjects to rebellion. I agree in one sense, and disagree totally in another, with the remark of the hon. gentleman when he says that the time is past when the Sovereign is to be treated otherwise than as a trustee for the people. As regards the preservation of our institutions the Sovereign is not to be regarded as a trustee, as regards the way in which her property is to be treated she is regarded as a trustee. But, if she is to be regarded in the view of the Criminal Law simply as a trustee, then it would be no offence to attempt to dethrone her by violence even, and to appoint another trustee in her place. We propose to retain the rule which has always prevailed in the British Dominions: That the Sovereign as a ruler is something more than a trustee, although as a holder of property she is nothing more. If the hon. gentleman will look again at the case he has cited, he will see that he is entirely mistaken as to this being a proposition of mine to change the common law. Lord Blackburn, Sir Charles Barry, Sir Robert Lush and Sir Fitz-James Stephen declared under their own bands that "this is as exact an application as we can make of the existing law."

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell.)-That may be, but my objection is to undertaking to make such a statement.

Mr. MULOCK.-Every one is agreed that all proper provisions should be enacted for the preservation of the existing political relations between the people of Canada and our present constitution. But, if this language is calculated in the slightest degree to impair freedom of speech which does not disturb the constitutional relations between the people and the state, then to that extent the provision should be modified. If you leave out sub-sections (c) and (d), or qualify them by referring to sub-sections (a) and (b), then we would have an interpretation of the meaning of these words without which they are vague. The Minister says that even if (c) and (d) might, by reason of vagueness, be open to an improper construction, the saving clause in sub-section 2 is sufficient. I do not think it is. Sub-section 2 does not say that any person who in good faith for the purpose named raises a "ruction" should be exempt. It only says by way of proviso that no one shall be deemed to have a seditious intent only because he intends in good faith to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken. It does not say that an honest intent shall be a defence. The hon. gentleman has made the mistake of enumerating the only instances in which good faith will apply, and therefore the saving clause is not at all sufficient. If I were to go on the platform, which painful duty may some day compel me to do, and point out the political crimes of an individual Minister of the Crown, for example, that is not specified in sub-section 2.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-It is not an offence under the main section to attack a Minister.

Mr. MULOCK.-Yes, it is. If I address an audience and raise hostility and ill-will between the various sections of that audience, I am prima facie liable to sedition, unless I can show that I was proceeding in good faith to do-what?

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-To point out errors or defects in the Government.

Mr. MULOCK.—It must be proved that my aim was to show that Her Majesty had been misled or mistaken in her measures, or that I was pointing out errors of defects in the Government or in the constitution of Canada or the United Kingdom. You might say that I was only pointing out the errors of an individual member of the Government. An error of the Government is an error of the whole body; the error of an individual is not an error of the Government, because we have the Government here repudiating the acts of individual members of the Government. If the Government held itself as a whole responsible for all the official acts of its individual members, I could understand it.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I do not agree with the hon gentleman that making a speech which people might not agree with is stirring up hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The denunciation of a Minister which might be disapproved of by the whole audience, although it might excite hostility and ill-feelings in their minds, is not the hostility referred to in this Bill.