1914-02-05

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Criminal Code. He said: This Bill is what I might call a double-barrelled measure, in the sense that while it deals with two distinct subjects, and amends the Criminal Code in regard to each of them, there is a certain affinity between those subjects. The general purpose of the Bill is to extend a larger measure of protection to Canadian citizens against the indiscriminate use of fire-arms, and the not less dangerous employment of certain modem contrivances whereby the characters of private individuals as well as the just secrets of deliberative meetings nicy be publicly exposed. When the Bill reaches its second reading I shall have occasion to dwell more fully upon its details. For the purposes, however, of immediate explanation I will just
4G8
[Stage Direction]
touch generally upon the two clauses thereof, and state the reasons of public interest that are behind each of them. The first clause aims at preventing employers of labour, either in person or through their agents, from employing on their works or premises any man or men who carry arms. A proviso to the clause safeguards the watchman, who has a license to carry weapons, as provided for by section 118 of the Criminal Code. As general principles are more easily understood when illustrated by concrete cases, I will take, as an example, the riots and bloodshed that marked the troubles in Buckingham a few years ago. There we find a man armed and employed by a company to protect its property, apparently, but really to enforce its impositions on the discontented workmen. That armed man fired and killed one of those connected with the strike. What has been the sequel? That same man, only a few weeks ago, in Montreal, broke into a house, shot at a woman, killed a child, fled from justice, and, when about to be arrested, shot himself dead. Imagine, now, the arming of a character of that kind, and employing him to move about, revolver in pocket, amongst unarmed and unoffending citizens. But some authority must decide when and where it is needful, in the public interest, to arm employed men, or to employ men so armed, upon the works or premises where other men are employed. This Bill leaves the onus of such decision upon the Attorney General of the province wherein such works or premises are situated. He is the lawful guardian of the peace in the province, and upon him rests the responsibility of according the permit without which no employer shall be able to legally employ any armed man or men.
I pass to the second clause of the Bill, which deals with the detectaphone, a new contrivance whereby conversations or deliberations may be recorded and made public afterwards. You can readily see how much the private character, the personal business, or the most intimate deliberations of any man, or any body of men, may by means of this instrument be exposed to violation and injury and ruin perhaps in some cases. The use of the detectaphone unless legally restricted is a menace to society; no man is safe, no family is secure, no organized body is safeguarded, as long as such means of detection and revelation are in existence. The cause relative to the matter has been most carefully drawn.

It deals in the first subsection with the use of such contrivances for the purpose of injuring the character of any person or the disclosing of the deliberations of any body. Just let us suppose that in a Masonic Lodge, or Council of Knights of Columbus, or an Orange Lodge, or a C.M.B.A. Council, or even in the Privy Council, over which the Premier presides, such an instrument were made use of-where would be the secrets so jealously guarded from those who have no right to obtain them? I need but mention the case to have it clearly understood without the necessity of any more elaborate explanations. Subsection 2 deals with the publication of the records of such detectaphones or similar instruments. As in the instance of the employment of armed men so in this case, the Bill leaves to the Attorney General of the province the power to accord the necessary permit allowing such publication, and he becomes the judge as to whether or not such publication is in the general interest of the public. I am fully aware that this detectaphone is used by lawfully authorized persons for the purposes of detecting crime and frauds; and to make it clear that we do not desire to interfere in any way with the prevention or punishment of crime, the third subsection most clearly states that nothing in this section shall be held to prevent or restrict the use of the detectaphone or other like contrivance in the detection of crime or fraud. With a pistol or other weapon a man may maim, would, even kill another person; but with the detectaphone he can destroy another's life, good name, character and future; he can bring ruin upon whole families, disturbance into communities, strife between neighbours; he can render impossible the carrying on of social affairs; he can do injury to any lawfully organized or constituted body in the country; he can militate against the liberty of the subject-in a word, it is questionable which of the two, the revolver or the detectaphone, is the more deadly menace to society.
This brief statement or explanation will, I trust, suffice at this stage of the measure. When the Bill is printed and distributed hon. members of the House will have ample opportunity of studying its details and its construction. I am convinced of the vital importance of placing on the statute-book restrictions such as this Bill provides.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	What was the amount to the credit of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1911, and what proportion of said balance has been contributed by the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway, and the employees of the said railways respectively?
2.	What was the amount to the credit of the said fund on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1912, and what was the amount paid into said fund during the period between October 1, A.D. 1911, and October, A.D. 1912, the last date excluded and the first included, and what proportionate amounts of said payments during saiu period of twelve months had been contributed by the said railways respectively, what proportionate amounts were contributed by the employees of said ralways respectively, and what was the amount paid out of said fund during said twelve months?
3.	What was the amount to the credit of the said fund on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1913, and what was the amount paid into said fund during the period between October 1, A.D. 1912, and October 1, A.D. 1913, the last named date excluded and the first date included, and what were the proportionate amounts contributed during said period of twelve months, by the said railways respectively and by the employees of said respective railways, and what amount was paid out of said fund during said last named period?
4.	What was the amount to the credit of the said fund on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1914, and what was the amount paid into said fund between the 1st day of October, A.D. 1913, inclusive, and the 1st day of January, A.D. 1914, exclusive, in what proportionate amounts were the contributions made by the said railways and the employees thereof respectively during said last mentioned period, and what amount was paid out of said fund under the provisions of said Act during said last named period?
5.	Have any retirements been made under the provisions of said Act since the 31st day of December, A.D. 1913, or arranged for to take effect in the near future? If so, who were the employees so retired or arranged to be retired under the provisions of said Act, what were the positions held by them respectively, where were they respectively employed, and where did they reside respectively, and if any such retirements were so made or arranged for, what would be the amount of the burden entailed on said fund by such retirements so made or arranged for, if any?
6.	Have any retirements been made or arranged for under the provisions of the said Provident Fund Act since January 1, A.D. 1913, to the present date without application from the parties so retired, or whose retirement has been arranged for? If so, what are the names and addresses of the employees requested, if any, to apply for their retirement under the
said Act, and without their voluntarily applying to be retired under said Act?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	(a) The amount to the credit of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund, under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1911, was $286,008.11.
(b) Of this amount $131,801.49 was contributed by the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways; $131,801.49 by the employees of the said railways, and $22,405.13 was for interest and refunds.
2.	(a) The amount to the credit of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1912, was $322,894.46.
(b)	The amount paid into the said fund during the period between October, A.D.
1911,	and September 30, A.D. 1912, was $174,770.35. Of this amount $82,612.45 was contributed by the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways; $82,612.45 by the employees of the said railways, and $9,545.45 was for interest and refunds. Of the above total $78,091.30 was contributed by the Intercolonial railway and $4,521.15 was contributed by the employees of the Prince Edward Island railway.
(c)	The amount paid out of said fund during the said 12 months was $137,884.
3.	(a) The amount to the credit of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund on the 1st day of October, A.D. 1913, was $364,068.16.
(b)	The amount paid into the said fund during the period between October 1, A.D.
1912,	and September 30, A.D. 1913, was $196,698. Of this amount $87,956.77 was contributed by the Intercolonial railway, $4,840.70 was contributed by the Prince Edward Island * railway, $87,956.77 was contributed by the employees of the Intercolonial railway, $4,840.70 was contributed by the employees of the Prince Edward Island railway, and $11,103.06 was for interest and refunds.
(c)	The amount paid out of the said fund during the above period was $155,524.30.
4.	(a) The amount to the credit of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1914, was $371,581.97.
(b) The amount paid into the said fund between the 1st day of October, A.D. 1913, and the 31st day of December, A.D. 1913,

was $50,510.50. Of the amount $23,371.46 was contributed by the Intercolonial railway, $1,219.79 was contributed by the Prince Edward Island railway, $23,871.40 was contributed by the employees of the Intercolonial railway, $1,218.79 was contributed by the employees of the Prime Edward Island railway, and $330 was for interest and refunds.
(c) The amount paid out of the said fund during the above period was $42,996.69.
5.	No.
6.	No.


PURCHASES OF LIVE STOCK.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	How many, and what breed, of sheep have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase of examination? If so, to whom and how much?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	There were 13 sheep comprised of the following breeds purchased in the province of Quebec by the Department of Agriculture during the year 1913: Cheviot, Leicester, Oxford-Down, Shropshire, South-Down.
2.	The names and addresses of the sellers
are as follow's:	Guy Carr, Compton Station, Que.; J. H. M. Parker, Lennoxville, Que.; H. E. Baldwin, Coaticook, Que.; Albert C. Ralfe, Lime Ridge, Que.; H. C. Bailey, Birchton, Que.
3.	The name and address of the representative through whom purchase was made is J. A. McClarey, Hillhurst, Que.
4.	The highest price paid was $25. The lowest price paid was $10.
5.	Purchase was made by a representative of the Live Stock Branch, and no commission was paid.


Mr. ROBB:: 
Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No cattle was purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	How many, and what breed, of horses, have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase or examination? If so, to whom and how much?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Five French-Canadian horses were purchased by the Experimental Farms Branch of the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec during the year 1913. Two horses, a Percheron and a Clydesdale, have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec by the Live Stock Branch thereof during the year 1913.
2.	The names and addresses of the sellers of the horses purchased by the Experimental Farms Branch are as follows: Eugene Bernier, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que.; L. P. Sylvestre, St. Theodore d'Aeton, Bagot county, Que.; Jos. Roche. St. Elizabeth, Joliette county, Que.; Pierre Lavallee, St. Norbert, Berthier county, Que. The name and addresses of the sellers of the horses purchased by the Live Stock Branch are as follows: Sam. Campbell, Cookshire, Que.; N. S. Inghram, Hillhurst, Que.
3.	The names and addresses of each agent
or representative through whom purchase was made in the case of the Experimental Farms Branch are as follows:	1 mare
bought through L. P. Sylvestre, St. Theodore d'Acton, Bagot county, Que. The remainder were purchased through a representative of the Experimental Farms Branch. In the case of those purchased by the Live Stock Branch, the name of J. A. McClarey, of Hillhurst, Que., has been given as the agent through whom the horses w-ere purchased.
4.	In the case of the Experimental Farms Branch, the highest price paid was $400, and the lowest $240. In the case of the

Live Stock Branch the highest price paid was $800 and the lowest $400.
5.	No commissions were paid.


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	now many, and what breed, of swine have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Quebec, for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase or examination? If so, to whom and how much?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	There were five swine, comprised of the following breeds, purchased in the province of Quebec by the Department of Agriculture during the year 1913: Yorkshire, Chester White.
2.	The names and addresses of each seller are as follows: J. A. McClarey, Hill-hurst, Que., T. F. Owens, Stonefield, Que., A. B. Waldron, Coaticook, Que.
3.	The name and address of the representative through whom purchase was made is J. A. McClarey, Hillhurst, Que.
4.	The highest price paid was $20; the lowest price paid was $20.
5.	Purchase was made by a representative of the Live Stock Branch, and no commission was paid.


STEAM TRAWLING.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Government taken any action since the close of last session of Parliament to prohibit steam trawling on the Atlantic coast of Canada?
2.	Have any foreign steam trawlers, not being licensed and not being thereto permitted by treaty or convention for the time being in force, purchased coal or other supplies at any Canadian port or ports since the enactment of
chapter 14 of the Act of 1913? If so, what are the names of such trawlers?
3.	(a) Have any foreign fishing sailing vessels, not holding modus vivendi licenses, purchased bait or other supplies in any Canadian port since the passing of said chapter 14? (b)
If so, have any prosecutions been brought?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	On account of the vigilance that was exercised in following the operations of steam trawlers, there have during the past year been no well founded complaints of these vessels fishing in our waters.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) No.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-WAGES OF LABOURERS.
Mr. BOULAY:: What wages are paid to labourers employed on the working trains in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?


Mr. COCHRANE:: Wages paid to
labourers on the Intercolonial railway working trains in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are from $1.50 to $1.80 per day. This rate varies in different localities and at different seasons of the year, but employees are always paid the rate prevailing in the locality in which they art employed.	,


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What are the names of the employees of the Intercolonial railway appointed chiefs of offices, superintendents or superior officers, since September 21, 1911?
2.	What salary is paid to each of them?
3.	What were their situations and what places did they come from prior to their appointment to such offices?
4.	How many French-speaking employees
are there in the offices of the Intercolonial at Monction, and what are their respective salaries?


Francis Cochrane: Name.
W. B. Mackenzie	
T. C. Burpee	
Fred Condon	
Hugh Jardine	
C.	W. Archibald	
H. H. Melanson	
D.	M. Condon	
Donald McDonald.... W. T. Huggin	
E.	Tiffin	
S. G. Tiffin	
H. H. Schaeffer. ...
A. E. Wilkinson	
A. McDonald	
Geo. Fernley	
R. Colclough	
E. L. Desjardins____
W. R. Fitzmaurice....
R. S. Richardson....
L. S. Brown	
W. A. Fitch	
W. B. Fleming. ..
F. X. Halle	
E. Savage	
D. A. Seaman	
W. P. Mills ....
A. B. Gorham....
Jas. Hamilton....
Geo. Cooper....
H. Spinney	
A. E. Well wood... J. C. Fullmore ...
W. E. Barees	
W. U. Appleton..
H. W. Sharpe	
H. W. Mackenzie. T. W. Hennessey..
Jos. Graham	
A. B. MacDonald.
Title.
Salary.
Previous
$ cts.
Position.
. Right of Way and Land Agent
. Supt. Engineer	
. Resident Engineer	
.	it		
. Roadmaster	
General Passenger Agent	
. District Passenger Agent	
.	H	ii		
M	ii		
. General Western Agent	
. Division Freight Agent	
'[DOT]	ii		
ii	ii		
Commercial Agent	
Superintendent	
Assistant Superintendent	
II	II		
II	II		
Superintendent	
Assistant Superintendent	
ii	ii		
B. and B. Master	
II		
II		
Roadmaster	
Master Mechanic	
General Master Mechanic. Master Mechanic	
ii		
it		
Locomotive Shops Supt... Car Shop Supt	
333 33 333 33 150 00 150 00 150 00 250 00 150 00 225 00 166 66 175 00 175 00 175 00 175 00 140 00 135 00 233 33 175 00 175 00 175 00 225 00 175 00 175 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 130 00 160 00 300 00 160 00 160 00 160 00 150 00 150 00
Chief Engineer.
Engineer of Maintenance. Division Engineer.

Asst. Passenger Agent.
Chief Clerk G.P.A.
District Supt.
Auditor and Account. P.E.I. General Traffic Manager. General Agent.
Division Freight Agent. Chief Clerk G.F.A.
H Supt.
Freight Solicitor.
Assistant to General Supt. Chief Despatcher.
Station Master.
Yard Master.
Assistant Supt.
Chief Train Despatcher.
ii	ii
Foreman Carpenter.
ii
ti
Roadmaster.
Foreman.
ii
ii
ii
Inspector.
Foreman.
Master Mechanic.
Asst, to Supt. M. P.
Acting Master Mechanic. Geneal Locomotive Foreman. Engineman.
Foreman Erecting Shop. Genera] Car Foreman.


HORSE BREEDING.
Mr. ROBB:: Is it the intention of the Government to continue this year the bonus to thoroughbred horses?


Mr. BURRELL:: The Government has under consideration the question of the form by which it is advisable to assist the horse breeding industry, including thoroughbreds.


BASSANO POST OFFICE SITE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has any land been donated to the Government for a post office site in the town of Bassano, Alberta? If so, by whom, and where is it situated?
2.	What was the reason for the Government failing, as alleged, to carry out its promise to build this post office last year?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to commence construction of this building this spring?

Mr. REID.
1.	(a) Yes; (b) by the town, on the corner of Third avenue and Third street.
2.	It took time to complete the title; obtain information as to space required by different departments; prepare plans and specification, and call for tenders to award contract.
3.	Yes.


SHIPMENTS OF GRAIN.
Mr. DEVLIN:: What was the quantity of grain shipped by lake from Fort William and Port Arthur in
1911,	1912 and 1913?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1911, 95,182,011 bushels;
1912,	135,545,946 bushels; 1913, 187,168,088
bushels.


MONTREAL COLONIZATION SOCIETY.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What is the amount of the grant made by the Government to the Montreal Society of Colonization?

2.	When was the money paid?
3.	Was any part of this money employed in travelling expenses of the members of the above society?
4.	How was this money spent?


Mr. ROCHE:: 
THE FENIAN RAID.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What was the total number of men, women and children in Canada at the time cf the Fenian raid?
2.	What was the total number, by provinces, at that time, capable of bearing arms?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	3,288,161. This estimate for 1866 is based on the ratio of increase established by the figures of 1871 over those of 1861, for the four provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
2.	861,164, as follows:	Ontario, 404,179;
Quebec, 293,082; Nova Scotia, 92,871; New Brunswick, 71,032.


CUSTOMS APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How many persons have been appointed
to the outside customs service since September, 1911?	,	.
2.	Of such persons, how many have since been transferred to the inside customs service without passing the Civil Service examination?
3.	What are their names, and what salaries do they enjoy respectively?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	768.
2.	None.	,
3.	None.


ST. ESPRIT LIGHTKEEPER.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	When did Alex. W. Finlayson, keeper of light on St. Esprit island, Richmond county, N.S., resign?
2.	Has another lightkeeper been appointed?
3.	Who is in charge of the light at the present time?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	By letter dated November 21, 1913.
2.	No.
3.	Mr. Alex. Ferguson.


ALBERTA INTERNAL ELEVATORS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: [DOT]
1.	How many internal storage elevators will be located in Alberta?
2.	At what points will they be located?
3.	When will they be placed under construction?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	During the year 1914, one elevator will be erected in Alberta.
2.	At Calgary.
3.	As soon as matters in reference to site are adjusted preparations for construction will begin.


HULL INLAND REVENUE RECEIPTS.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	What are the receipts, if any, from Inland Revenue at Hull?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect a building for Inland Revenue at Hull?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1913, $1,098.12; for the nine months ended December 31, 1913, $786.63; total, $1,884.75.
2.	The Department of Inland Revenue has no knowledge of a building to be erected in Hull and has received no request to that effect.


MAIL BAG LOCKS.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many new mail locks, patented under No. 151043, have been purchased by the Post Office Department since 19th March. 1913 ?
2.	What is the price paid for each lock?
3.	What is the name of the firm from whom purchased?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. None.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


THREE RIVERS PREVENTIVE OFFICER.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Have instructions been given by the Minister of Customs or his officers, to notify Isai Dufresne, Preventive officer at the port of Three Rivers, that his services would not be required after February 1, 1914, but that if he should give his resignation on or before the 15th of January, 1914, he would be allowed three months gratuity to May 1, 1914, under leave of absence?
2.	Were such instructions in writing? If so, by whom were they signed and at whose request?
3.	Has any recommendation been made by anyone concerning Mr. Dufresne's successor. If so, who is or was recommended, and by whom?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1. No instructions were given to notify Isai Dufresne, preventive officer of customs

at the port of Three Rivers, that his services would not be required after February 1, 1914. The collector of customs at Three Rivers intimated to Mr. Dufresne that if he tendered his resignation the question of granting him three months leave of absence to May 1, 1914, with pay, wou'd be considered.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	There is no official correspondence on file regarding a successor to Mr. Dufresne.


TRADE AND COMMERCE BULLETIN.
Mr. McCRANEY:: What persons in the electoral district of Saskatoon receive the bulletin of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


George Eulas Foster: Cahill & Telford: the Commissioner Board of Trade; Prof. H. Culter, University of Saskatoon; Dominion Sales Corporation; Vernon Grant; Kilvert Bros.; the Saskatoon Forwarding and Storage Co.; Dr. Edmund H. Oliver, University of Saskatoon; J. Hollis Yates.


THE STEAMER ALERT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Customs to a telegram which I have received from a responsible party in Halifax. That telegram reads:
North Sydney despatch says that the Alert sailed again yesterday for North Victoria carrying R. H. Butts and H. D. Maclean and two other political operators.
In view of the discussion of the other night, the assurance given by the minister, and the facts which were made plain to the House that there was no possible excuse for the steamer going north in connection with the customs, will the minister not telegraph to the proper authorities in Sydney directing that she shall not go north again under the circumstances, and ascertain the truth of the statement that these men were on her when she went yesterday.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Cus-tims):: I made inquiries from the -chief
preventive officer as to why this steamer did make the trips to Neil's harbour on the date on which the discussion took place. For your information I shall read the memorandum which has been sent me, showing why the steamer took the first trip to Neil's harbour. The statement is:
On 20th December last Customs Officer Young telegraphed from North Sydney that American Ashing schooner Laverna had been fishing within three mile limit at Neil's harbour-that 
collector of customs had sworn statement signed by five shore fishermen to this effect, and that he despatched cruiser Alert to investigate. Officer Young the same day forwarded two explanatory reports in writing. The contents of said telegram were transferred to the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service for necessary attention.
Meanwhile Officer Young on 22nd December was instructed to forward copies of sworn statements signed by the fishermen.
On 27th December copy of Officer Young's report of 20th December, together with copy of letter from the customs officer at Neil's harbour and copy of the affidavit of the fishermen, was transferred to the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service for his further information.
On the 15th the Deputy Minister of Naval Service wrote enclosing extract and asking for additional details. On the 16th of January, a copy of the extract was forwarded to Mr. Young.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is not in regard to smuggling.


John Dowsley Reid: I want to show why the officer went. On the 20th of January the officer replied that he was despatching the Alert to get all possible information, and on the 23rd of January, officer Young received orders to send the Alert to Neil's harbour, as soon as weather would permit, for the purpose of obtaining all further information possible. On the 23rd of January, when the weather conditions were somewhat unfavourable, the Alert went as far as Ingonish and arrived at Neil's harbour on the 26th of January, but the sea was too rough to permit of the vessel remaining there for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information, and she returned to North Sydney to await more favourable weather. That was the time she took these gentlemen on board, and officer Young has made a report that the vessel took on board two flour barrels and one case. It was not at all likely that there was only whisky in the flour barrels.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that I had the
chief preventive officer wire Mr. Young on the 4th of February as follows:
Where is the Alert now? Do not allow her to take any more passengers or freight at any time without instructions from Ottawa.
I got this telegram in reply to-day:
Alert left here this afternoon for Neil's harbour via Ingonish. Took number nasseneers with their luggage. Aspy, regular boat on this route laid up. Captain has instructions secure all information, possible re Laverna.
I felt that in taking on baggage he was exceeding his authority in view of the in-

struetions that had been sent down. Accordingly I gave instructions to the chief preventive officer, and the following messages were sent.
Angus Toung,
Customs Officer, North Sydney, N.S.
You are hereby notified that you are suspended from office.
(Sgd.) W. F. Wilson,
Chief Preventive Officer of Customs.
The other telegram sent to Mr. W. N. McDonald read:
The Alert is hereby ordered out of commission from to-day.
(Sgd.) W. F. Wilson,
Chief Preventive Officer of Customs.
I think, therefore, that so far as the Customs Department is concerned, we have done everything we could, as I said before we had no knowledge of the affair from the start.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister ascertained the fact that there was no object in sending the Alert north for the purpose of preventing smuggling. It was not alleged there were any smugglers.


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned the other day
that I supposed that was the reason, but after getting the papers from the chief officer I see the reason was that a vessel had been fishing within the three-mile limit.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not on acount of
smuggling on the 20th of December last.


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to a paragraph appearing in the morning papers, stating that instructions had been sent to Winnipeg to enter an action in the courts to annul the sale of St. Peter's Indian Reserve. I would be glad if the minister would give the House a short statement for the reason of the action taken, and the purpose intended to be served.


Plon. W. J. ROCHE (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: I may say in
answer, that this has been a very much vexed question. As the hon. member knows, it engaged the attention of Parliament when he was minister, and the validity of the surrender was challenged in the House at that time. The Manitoba Government appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the conditions of the surrender and other matters pertaining to the disposal of St. Peter's Indian reserve. The majority report stated that the surrender was not a legal one on several grounds. There was also a minority report by one member, Judge Myers, who did not agree with his colleagues on the commission. As a result of the majority report, the registrar of the province of Manitoba would not register any titles to the lands disposed of.
A deputation waited on me prior to the Christmas holidays, urging me to expedite the settlement of this matter, and after consultation with my colleagues, and especially with the Minister of Justice, it was deemed wise to enter action in the courts of Manitoba to test the validity of the surrender. That action is now in the hands of the Minister of Justice. The article the hon. member refers to is substantially correct.


Frank Oliver: What is the case of the
Government? Against whom does it enter action?


William James Roche: That is more a question
for my colleague the Minister of Justice, but I may say that it is to find out whether the surrender that was taken on that occasion was a legal surrender. As the Royal Commission had pronounced it an illegal surrender, we thought we would test it in the courts of Manitoba and have a final decision.


Frank Oliver: Is the department attacking or defending the surrender?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: May I ask
what is the nature of the action?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Is it an action by the Attorney General of Canada?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Yes.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: In the Supreme Court of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention is to bring this action before the courts of Manitoba for adjudication upon the ques-

tion of whether or not the surrender was legal, involving as it does the validity of titles to any lands which may subsequently be transferred.


Mr. MURPHY:: Why not take the case to the Exchequer Court?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or to the Supreme Court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be an appeal from the decision of the courts of Manitoba to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court is not a court to try a case of this kind.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the Minister of Justice-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This procedure of following up question after question is certainly not regular, and I think the better way would be to put the questions on the Order Paper.


Frank Oliver: I wanted to ask the Government if they would be good enough to bring down the papers connected with the case without delay and lay them on the table, and whether they would require a motion to that effect.


William James Roche: Probably the hon. member had better put the motion on the paper, and then we will know exactly what he desires.


INQUIRIES FOR REPORTS AND RETURNS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. GRAHAM:: Might I ask the Minister of Railways if any decision has been given by the Board of Railway Commissioners as to western freight rates, and, if not, has he any idea when such a decision will be given?


Francis Cochrane: I could not say. I have consulted with the Chairman, and they are still working at it. I hope it will be down very soon, but I could not give the exact date.


George Perry Graham: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals when he expects the report of the Commission appointed to investigate the Transcontinental railway construction.


Francis Cochrane: I thought I would
have it this week, but it will be next week before I will be able to bring it down.


Charles Murphy: The papers had it last week.


Francis Cochrane: I have not seen it yet.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that on the 7th May last I got an Order of the House for a return. The return was brought down the other day, but it is not at all in .accordance with the Order of the House. Perhaps I might read the Order:
For a return showing; the total cost of the Elmira branch railway in Prince Edward Island ; the total amounts paid the contractors, Whitehead Brothers; the total amount paid by the Government after taking the work off the contractor's hands, and showing the amount paid in wages each month, the names of the men to whom it was paid, the positions they held, and the wages per day to each; also showing what materials were used, each kind and class, with the cost of each, from whom purchased, and when, and the quantities left over, if any.
The return is really of no use in the way in which it is prepared. It is a jumble of figures, which nobody could understand; in fact, even the addition is wrong. I asked for a statement of the quantity of materials supplied after the work was taken off the contractors' hands, from whom obtained, and the prices. In some cases the names are given and the quantities, but in other cases the quantities are given without the names. In some cases an item as small as five cents is mentioned, and then again a large amount is classed under the head of ' sundries.' The return really contains no information that anybody could make use of. The party who prepared it must have known that it was no good. If a clerk in a business office were asked to prepare a statement and submitted anything of that kind to the general manager he would be severely reprimanded, and I think that the parties who prepared this statement should receive a reprimand. This was prepared at Moncton. Is there any one in the department here to whom I could apply who would have power to instruct the parties at Moncton how they should prepare the statements and order them to do so? If there is anybody here who has that power, I will apply to him.
Mr, COCHRANE:	I am sorry that the
hon. gentleman has been so aggrieved at receiving a return which he alleges not to contain the true facts of the case. I have no knowledge personally of it myself, although I believe it to be prepared according to the question asked. I shall certainly bring it to the attention of those in charge of the matter and convey to them the statement made by the hon. gentleman.


Mr.  J. J. HUG HRS@: The minister says that he believes it is prepared according to the Order of the House. I will submit it to the hon. gentleman himself, and I am sure I will convince him that it is not prep-pared according to the Order of the House.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would like
to be permitted to call the attention of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) to the fact that somewhere about the middle of last session I asked to have brought down the papers regarding the dismissal of David Shontz, postmaster at Didsbury, Alta. The papers have not, as far as I am aware, come down. I do not think t'hat they can be very difficult to prepare. It is the only dismissal in which I was interested, and I should like if the minister would have the return prepared and brought down.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I will inquire about
it, and if it has not been brought down I will have it brought down.


HOUSE OF COMMONS POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. iSINCLAIR:	Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call your attention to the necessity of having a post office money order branch in the House of Commons. I understand that the House of Commons is altogether under the control of Your Honour, and that is the reason I mention this to you instead of to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). It often happens that members and senators require to send small sums of money through the mail, and it is very inconvenient to have to go to the city post office or to the banks. The messengers are very capable, but it is difficult to make change and also difficult to instruct messengers in regard to these matters. It would be a great convenience to the members of the House if a money order branch were placed within the precincts of the House of Commons.
Mr. -SPEAKER : I do not know how -far I have any authority in the premises, but I will endeavour to get information on the subject as far as I can and try to meet the wishes of the members of the House.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There has been an understanding that letters could be handled here at the House of Commons, not under the control of the Post Office Department. But the department is very jealous of the money matters. We might come to an understanding by which one of our officials could come here, and thus try to meet the desires of hon. members.


'HANSARD' REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Frank Oliver: I desire to draw attention to a statement with certain comments thereon which have appeared in the Globe recently.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this is quite out of order. While under special circumstances it is permissible, when the Orders of the Day are called, for members to ask questions or to refer to papers that are not properly brought down in answer to orders for returns, in my judgment it is not permissible for a member to rise and introduce subject after subject, because that would interfere with the regular work of the House. I am referring to the matter only in the hope that the hon. members will keep a little closer within what is a well understood rule of the House, and thereby facilitate the transaction of business.


Frank Oliver: I desire to keep within the rules of the House, but this matter is one concerning the House, and I think it would be in order almost at any time. The comment is in regard to the correctness of the ' Hansard ' report, and the allegation is that certain words, expressing a very definite idea and used by one of the members for Prince Edward Island, have 4 p.m. been omitted from the unrevised ' Hansard.' This is surely a matter of sufficient importance to bring before the attention of the House. It is thoroughly understood that ' Hansard,' particularly the unrevised ' Hansard ' shall be a verbatim report of what has occurred in the House. If undesirable expressions have been used, it is possible that they may be corrected in the revised ' Hansard.' As I am not on the Debates Committee, I do not know what latitude is allowed in that direction. But, unless ' Hansard ' is to be an accurate report of statements made in the House by members when ostensibly expressing their views on behalf of their constituents, it certainly has not the value that has generally been attributed to it. Therefore I think it is only right that this matter should be brought to the attention of the House for the purpose of having it brought in the most public manner to the attention of whatever authority exists having control of the ' Hansard ' report.


Mr. CARVELL:: What are the words
omitted?


Frank Oliver: 'Let us dash away and
spend the public money.' It may be that the hon. member from Prince Edward Island did not use these words.


Mr. HAZEN:: Who alleges that he did?


Frank Oliver: The Globe alleges that he did. Its authority should be sufficient to warrant us in drawing attention to the statement. If the Globe has made a mis-statement, it certainly should be corrected. If the Globe has made a correct statement, then ' Hansard ' should be corrected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not permissible to bring into the House a publication or paper contradicting a statement of any member. In my'judgment, however, it would be quite proper to draw attention to the matter so that the ' Hansard ' staff might be communicated with to ascertain whether they gave a verbatim report according to what they heard in the House.


Frank Oliver: That would be my desire.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have heard it rumoured that the ' Hansard ' report was corrected in that regard by the member. If that is so, it is a matter whinh ought to be brought to the attention of the House, and on which the Debates Committee should take immediate action.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will refer the matter to the Debates Committee.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West) moved second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said:	This Bill is not at all of a
revolutionary character, but proposes to amend the Dominion Elections Act so as to bring it into conformity with the spirit of that Act. It will be noticed that by subsection 2 of section 8 of the Dominion Elections Act, being chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1906, the lists are based upon the provincial voters' lists; that is to say, the provincial voters' lists are adopted, and they shall be, as far as possible, observed and followed. That is the spirit of the qualification necessary to entitle any person to vote in a Dominion election. Section 96, however, which deals with deposits at elections, does not carry out the spirit of the rest of the Act, but requires that there shall be a deposit, no matter what the law is in any particular province. This Bill proposes to amend
[Mr. Carvell.l
that and to bring the Dominion Elections Act automatically into conformity with the provincial Act, as it is or is supposed to be in all other respects. That is to say, in a province where no deposit is required by a parliamentary candidate in a provincial election, there shall be no deposit required in a Dominion election; and in a province where there is a deposit or some modification of it required in a provincial election, the 'Dominion Act shall automatically conform with that also.
This matter, while apparently not of vast importance, is really of importance, in principle at least, to a great many people. I am speaking by the book when I say that the representatives of 100,000 workmen of Canada have requested that at least this measure of reform should be adopted. I am also able to say that a vast majority of the journals of this country have approved of this amendment. This Bill follows strictly the Dominion Elections Act in this respect, and is advancing by slow degrees into conformity with and not as at present in violation of the Dominion Elections Act.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The proposition of this Bill
is not that this Parliament should determine for itself whether, as qualifying' a person to present himself as a candidate for election as a member of this House, he should be required to make a deposit or not; the proposition is that we should legislate that, whatever the provinces desire for their respective elections with regard to this question of making a deposit, shall govern with regard to the Dominion election. If I understand the hon. member rightly, he says that that is in accordance with the spirit of the Dominion Elections Act generally, because we under the present system accept the voters' lists as prepared under provincial legislation. I think that the two matters are perfectly distinct. I am prepared to concede that there might be a good deal to be said in favour of the idea of this Government undertaking to determine the matter of the franchise or right to vote but I am not concerned with that for the moment. I would point out that it does not necessarily follow that, because our legislation accepts for use in Dominion elections the voters' lists as prepared by the different provinces, in order to be consistent we should also determine that the qualifies-

tions that the legislatures fix for persons presenting themselves as candidates to become members of such legislatures should determine what are the qualifications candidates should have in order to present themselves for election as members of this House. I think, that for us to leave that to be determined in the different provinces according to the views that these legislatures may entertain as to what requirements they should impose on a candidate for election to the legislature, is highly undesirable. Whether it is or is not desirable that we should require a deposit, it seems to me undesirable that we should leave that question so far as the qualification for this House is concerned, to be determined one way in one province and another way in another province according as the members of the legislatures of these provinces may or may not think a deposit should be required of a candidate for election to the provincial legislature. For my own part, I should be disposed to think the House would act wisely in rejecting the measure that is now proposed.
Motion for second reading of the Bill negatived.


TITLES OF HONOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough, West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to abolish titles of honour in Canada. He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill, seconded by Mr. Lapointe of Kamouraska, I should like to say that there are really two aspects to this question. The first is necessarily the constitutional . aspect. Todd, in his Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies says that grants of honours and titles of distinction, like the prerogative of mercy, are extraordinary prerogatives and of exceptional nature, but * nevertheless this prerogative, like any other function of royalty, must be exercised with the concurrence and upon the responsibility of ministers.1 Whatever the Crown may wish to retain or exercise of this prerogative is not in any sense within the purview of this Bill. This Bill deals wholly with the actions of the people and their representatives. The general aspect of this Bill may be referred to somewhat in this way: Modern titles spring from names that were originally names of the occupants of actual offices or those actually following certain occupations. In the course of time, the occupants and the occupations disappeared, leaving their bare names behind. These names have been
appropriated by others for ornamental purposes, and have gradually developed into names for the establishment of classes. They are class names. Now, for a democracy to utilize names for the establishment of classes or orders in the democracy is in itself a contradiction in terms and is, I maintain, entirely contrary both to the wish and the spirit of democracy. Moreover, it is unscientific. In this scientific age-and we may refer to it perhaps in that way- it is entirely crude to label an object,
' homo sapiens,' when-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I knew that a little learned reference would call forth a response from the members of the Opposition, and I am glad their Latin goes so far. I say it is entirely crude to label an object Homo Sapiens when the one so named may be merely a greedy feeder at the public trough, or in fact a member of the protozoa order, the most absolutely undeveloped order of all. That, Sir, I say, is unscientific and objectionable. I do not for one moment pretend that there are not people who have received titles, such as-if I may be allowed the reference-the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who are worthy of any title and who are superior to any title; but that does not make the action less a violation of the principle, nor does it make it less likely for democracy to incur the grave and serious danger of drifting into a possible-not under this Government-sale and purchase of honours. We have lately seen, as history will show, that there has been an alarming condition developed in England. And not merely is it the cable report, out it is the established fact-established by members of parliament-that there have been sales of honours by the people's representatives in England. That is, of course, most detrimental both to the honours and to the people at large. We know from the facts of everyday life that these things are quite possible and indeed probable. In any event, I still adhere strictly to the principle that democracy in itself does not contemplate class honours, and therefore it is a violation of the principle of democracy and of the will of the people that they should be established.
It being universally admitted that virtue is its own reward, it logically follows that all those who desire further reward must, by so much, lack the requisite qualification. It should be open, I maintain to every *man and woman, to reach the highest

standard of excellence and esteem without let or hindrance from established customs or the exigencies of government. We know perfectly well that titular honours cannot fittingly be bestowed on people who are too poor to receive them. The consequence is that for the simple virtues of everyday life there have been exchanged what we may euphoniously call the more splendid and showy virtues. I do not think that that is at all desirable, because if there is any class of life that we ought to wish to raise to a high level it is that cless which in itself and in its immediate surroundings is deprived of wealth and opportunity. From those who have great means, great wealth, great abilities and good health, much is to be expected, and accordingly to them not much should be awarded. But those people who have poor health, little or no wealth, who live in squalor; who are in a condition, perhaps, of semi-starvation; those people, as I myself know to be the case in many instances, are willing to conform to a lofty standard of virtue, and they demand our recognition. These, we should not pass by.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have only to say that whatever may be the desirability of the people's representatives bestowing honours upon themselves or recommending themselves for honours; when we see men contemplating their own distinction with such equanimity as to enable them to pin upon their breasts the orders typifying that distinction, we must come to the conclusion that they have gone far past the realization of the basic virtue which should be at the bottom of all our actions.


Hon.   GEORGE@: E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I was waiting for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to take up the constitutional side of this matter, upon which I am possibly not so strong as I might be. Aside from the constitutional aspect of the question, there is, I suppose, .what we may call the common sense aspect, as well as the theoretic aspect of it. So far as the theory is concerned, I do not quite see what my hon. friend aims at in the first section of the Bill, in which I find these words:
All titles of honour or honorary titles heretofore created by the Parliament or Government of Canada.
Until I noticed these words, I did not have the idea that the Government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada had ever
created any such honorary titles as are

probably aimed at by my hon. friend in the Bill. He did not mention those to which he referred.


John Hampden Burnham: They can be created
under the Militia Act for example.


George Eulas Foster: I had the idea that nowadays those were so common that they were no longer considered so distinctly honorary that they could be aimed at by my hon. friend in this Bill. I am quite aware that for a defenceless layman like myself, surrounded by military men on all sides, to make an assertion like that in this House, is a piece of hardihood which, if I had thought it over a little while longer, I possibly would not have committed. However, we cannot withdraw what goes on ' Hansard '; we had to-day a little lesson with reference to that.
I have not very much to say upon this question except that I think the bestow-ment of honours comes from the source of all honour, that is, the King; and that we must allow the King to have unrestricted scope as to the selection of persons upon whom to bestow these titles of honour. I do not know that this Parliament, not having the power of originating or controlling; not being the supreme source of power so far as the bestowment of honours is concerned, has anything particular to say about it, or should pass legislation with reference to it. That is my first objection to the passage of a Bill of this kind in this Parliament. With respect to democracy and its demands, and, incidentally, with respect to the old adage which has come to us from early times, 'Virtue is its own reward,' however much veneer or outside appearance of democracy a man or a people may take on, those of us who do not make such open pretensions to democracy are probably quite as really and truly democratic as they are. I am not quite sure that there is not innate in every person an ever-present recognition of the fact that men do differ one from the other, and that there are grades in excellence, and whether an honour is indicated by the aggregate public opinion as expressed by the society in which a man may live, or whether that expression is embodied in the bestowment of a well-earned honour by the King himself, I do not think it is at all a bad thing that a man should be so rated according to his excellence. I believe that that is the spur of all best endeavour. Virtue may be its own reward to one's self in one's own heart and conscience, but the reward is better

applied and more effective when it is read into the conviction and thought of his neighbours-those who know him-and assumes the quality of conferment of an estimate of him. I feel that a man who is trying to live right and do right is helped in every way if he has the consciousness, whether written or unwritten, of being held in esteem by those who know him, and consequently of having a mark of appreciation placed upon him. In the same way, if a man serves the State and serves it well, I do not think the State is injured, and I do no think the man himself is injured if a recognition of his services is made by the bestowment of an honour upon him. Whilst we stand upon that ground, we all have to admit that it is possible that even kings may err in the bestowment of honours, but I hold that that does not militate against the general principle, and it is on the general principle that I am basing this argument. The exception is present everywhere, and is said generally to prove the rule; in this case I think it does. I also have some little objection to this Bill being passed at this time because I have some very worthy friends on the other side of the House, who, I know, may very well aspire to have the eye of the bestower of these gifts pass benignly and rest for a time upon themselves. I should not be so ungenerous as to vote that in the opinion of this Parliament these honours should not be bestowed; it would not be quite fair to these deserving friends of mine on the other side. For myself and for hon. gentlemen on this side, we are so democratic that we have no aspirations in that line and therefore we could afford to let the Bill go. While I have in part treated this subject lightly, I do not wish to have it understood that I do not feel perfectly convinced in my own mind that is it not a radical evil that the eye of those in the highest position may be directed towards the subjects of the King; and where there are deeds that are for the benefit of the country, that are patriotic and that are performed in that public way that they may be recognized, I do not think it is a bad thing to have in a country some means of giving recognition; and, democrat as I am, I yet feel that a tempered democracy in this respect might not be a bad thing to perpetuate in this country and in this empire of ours.
With reference to public service I do
*31
not think that I will strike much of a note of opposition when I say that a great deal of the best public work and public service in our empire is not paid for, is not the subject of emolument and of reward as we count the rewards either of position or in a financial way. I go further, and say that public service which is done without the hope of rewards and emolument in that way, is probably the cleanest and purest and most efficient that we have in the empire; and I do not think it takes away from either the merit of what has been done or from the recognition of it, to have the sense present that after all there is one high superior power which when there comes up a striking case of public service can mark it, label it by the bestowal of the honour, and hold up to the people of the whole empire the deed that was done, for that is what the honour is supposed to do. If one could say that the bestowal of honour had been done unworthily, upon unworthy persons, none of us, of course, would for a moment give such a practice our approval. But the principle itself, I hold, is not wrong in our empire. It has in the past resulted in great [DOT] good and will, I believe, in the future result in great good. In that regard I am sorry to say to my hon. friend that I am not yet convinced that I should support his Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I also am sorry to have to say to my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that I cannot support his Bill, and I do it with all the more regret because he has been very kind to me in his remarks in presenting it to the House. I am all the more sorry because, in a large measure, I am very much disposed to agree with him in principle. I do not think that the intention which he had in mind when drafting his Bill is well expressed in the manner in which the Bill has been brought forward. If we are ever to take the position in this House that we should have no more titles in Canada, the question should not be approached in the way of a Bill but by a recommendation or address to His Majesty the King, because the King alone does bestow honour. And, if we were to object to the exercise of the prerogative in this respect I do not think it would be respectful to do it in the form of an Act of Parliament. My bon. friend says that the titles we have at the present time are not at all in consonance with our democratic spirit.



For my part I am largely disposed to agree with him. The titles that we have at present in this country and in the motherland are all relics of the feudal state of Great Britain. If I may be pardoned, the title which I myself bear is a relic of this [DOT]old state, and I do not think that in a democracy like Canada such titles can ever take root. I agree with my hon. friend, they are not in consonance with the spirit of the age. That is one view and consideration which I think is well worthy of our attention. But at the same time the prerogative of the Crown has been followed for so many centuries and is yet bestowed with such acceptance generally that I do not believe that, even in such a democracy as we are, very serious objection can he taken to the manner in which the prerogative has been exercised.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: In the bestowal of these honours in England, the Prime Minister assumes the responsibility, as I understand it. There have been honours bestowed in Canada. Do they go on the responsibility of the advice of the Prime Minister of this country, or, who assumes the responsibility?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection whatever to answer the question of my hon. friend. In England there are certain honours which are bestowed every year and which, I understand, are simply a matter of course, and go to the Sovereign upon the imprimatur both of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. That takes place as a matter of course every year. We have not come up to this here. I have no hesitation in saying that in my humble judgment-and this is the position which I always took when I was Prime Minister-it is a prerogative of the Crown and not a matter to be covered by ministerial responsibility. I believe that on a matter of this kind the Governor, for the time being, whoever he may be, is the representative of the Crown, and he would not make any recommendation to his Sover- * eign unless he had previously consulted his Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister also would probably consult his colleagues. That is the manner in which it should be done, but I would not follow the doctrine so far as to say that this is a case in which the ministerial responsibility should be exercised. The matter, in my humble judgment is not of the importance that should be covered by ministerial responsibility. It is altogether a matter for the prerogative of the Crown.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not so in England. There is a responsibility assumed by the Prime Minister in England, and apparently by what the right hon. gentleman says, there is no responsibility assumed by the ministry for honours given in this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: I believe in
England also, as a matter of present development, the Prime Minister is generally consulted by the Sovereign, but I believe there are circumstances in which the Sovereign would think himself justified in exercising his own prerogative and I doubt if any prime minister would make it a matter of ministerial responsibility or ministerial crisis.
The question which the hon. member puts to me is an evidence that these titles have become antiquated; they are no longer suited to the spirit of the age. There was a time when the prerogative of the Crown in these matters was exercised upon the sole responsibility of the Crown; and when a minister would not think of interfering. As democratic institutions developed even in England, the Sovereign has been in the habit of consulting his ministers, but I do not think it has come to the point of being covered by ministerial responsibility. In the present age there is always, we know, even in democracies, the tendency to confer these honours and distinctions. We have only to go to the other side of the line where we know that titles are given not by the Government but by the popular will. I understand that in the French republic the Legion of Honour, instituted by Napoleon in 1804, is more sought after than it ever was in the Napoleonic regime, so that as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, this is a little concession to human weakness. Men will be men to the end of time, I suppose. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was very kind in stating that he would not deprive us on this side of the House of these rewards. I am sorry I cannot return the compliment, because my hon. friends opposite do not deserve any reward. At all events, for the time being, we are content, as he said, that virtue should be its own reward, and we claim nothing else.
Motion of second reading of Bill negatived.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Criminal Code. He

said: The object of this Bill is to do away entirely with the death penalty in this country and to substitute therefor a life sentence; and, in addition, to provide for the use of the lash in certain cases. I think the time has come when we should deal with this question, and deal with it fairly and honestly. The death penalty, as I said when I introduced the Bill, is a blot on Christendom, a blight on religion, and a reproach to the civilized nation that allowed it on its statute books. If we look for a moment at the results of capital punishment as administered, not only here but the world over, we find that if a man commits murder and he is very wealthy, he is adjudged insane, and saves his neck. If he is fairly wealthy, he can employ sufficient counsel to get commutation of sentence, but if he is a poor man with no friends and with no influence, he goes to the gallows. To me, it seems a terrible thing that the poor man should get the the full effect of the law, and be hanged by the neck until he is dead and his soul ushered into eternity. It is true the State says the man is not fit to live, but I say this, Mr. Speaker, if ' he is not fit to live, is the State prepared to say that he is fit to die? The State says: Away with him, hang him, he is not fit for this world; but I ask the State: Are you quite sure he is fit for the next. I say that a man who is not fit for earth is not fit for heaven. Furthermore, capital punishment is against the law of God. The great Geometrician of the Universe says in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill, and I claim that that commandment applies to the State just as much as to the individual. But the State says: Oh probably ; He did not mean that, and so, we will legislate the word * not ' out of that commandment. To me, Sir, capital punishment becomes then nothing short of legalized murder. Quite a number of people, as hon. gentlemen in this House know, say that capital punishment is a deterrent of crime, but I have some of the best authorities, I think, in the world, including the best statesmen that England ever produced, among others John Bright, to prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and never was, to even murderously disposed criminals. To my mind, nothing is more degrading to society at large in a Christian land than the death penalty, and let it not ' be forgotten that we in degrading become degraded, and that society in degrading becomes degraded. I claim that the Lord gives life and the Lord alone has the right 31}
to take it. We have no moral right to destroy that which we cannot restore. We do not punish the criminals alone but we brand his children to the fourth and fifth generation with the brand of Cain. I might say that in my opinion no' man commits murder in his sane moments; in fact, a great many of the very best medical authorities state emphatically, that a person perpetrating murder is insane at the moment that he commits the deed. The old and barbarous death penalty is fast dying out in all Christian lands. No hon. member of this House who believes in the Creator, will dare to vote in favour of this legalized murder by the State. What does the State do? This Government, and I do not blame this Government any more than its predecessors, makes a compact with the legalized, licensed, executioner, for a money consideration, to drag our fellowman to the scaffold, to send his body to the grave and his isoul into eternity. Think of it- that a Government could descend to the depth that it would make a contract to have a fellow creature ushered into eternity in consideration of a bonus of thirty pieces of silver.
Mr. HENDERSON:: What about the
judge who sentences him?


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: There are, I know, differences of opinion in different countries, as to crime. In England, the greatest crime is murder, for which hanging is the penalty. In Russia, they do not hang for murder, but for political reasons. I think there are men in Canada to-day who can remember certain young men who were hanged here for so-called political crimes. If any hon. members of this House will take the trouble when in Montreal, to go to the Catholic cemetery, they will see engraved on a splendid monument the. names of many young Canadians who were legally murdered after the events of the Rebellion of 1837. It was not confined entirely to Montreal or to Quebec; the same thing ' happened in Toronto where, Matthews and Lount, two of the finest young men Ontario ever produced, supporters of Lyon Mackenzie, were condemned to death and hanged. There is no question in my mind but that that, more especially in view of our present enlightment, was declared murder. It created such a revulsion of feeling, in Upper and Lower Canada, a feeling which spread across the water, to the throne of Queen Victoria, that for twenty years, from 1838 to 1858, no Government of Canada would allow a man to be hanged. There

was not a single ease of capital punishment in Canada during those twenty years, and we are told it was largely due to the feelings of Queen Victoria which were respected by the Governors of this country.
If we could get along without capital punishment for twenty years in this country, why not for all time? There never was a time when Canada was more peaceful than during these twenty years. I ask the Parliament of Canada to give this a trial; it is not very long from one session to another, and we do not run any risk in trying the experiment. I am going to point out twelve or eighteen different countries and states in which capital punishment was abolished many years ago. In not a single case do the figures show that crime has increased, and in most cases the fact is that crime has actually decreased. I know that there are probably men who do not believe that there is a Creator; men who do not believe in the eternity of the soul, and who will say: Well, it is best to get rid of the murderer. From a purely earthly point of view that may be so, but I believe in the eternity of the soul, and I Believe there is a Creator, and I, for one, will never permit, if I can prevent it, having a man's soul thrust into eternity by process of law. There may be some who have such a thirst for human blood that they would resent the suggestion I offer, but if there be such a man in this House, I say to him: let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
(1) Capital punishment brutalizes the public, as well as the officials who have to carry it out, thus tending to destroy all notions of the sanctity of human life. (2) Capital punishment is not deterrent, and by some criminals is less feared than penal servitude for life. A large proportion of the murders committed are due to influences over which no deterrent can avail, such as drink, jealousy, etc. (3) Capital punishment being irrevocable, is too extreme a measure; with a wrong verdict and the sentence carried out, the mistake cannot be rectified. (4) Since it is largely accidental whether the victim of a murderous assault dies or recovers, the sentence depends upon chance. It is illogical that identical crimes should incur different penalties. (5) Capital punishment, being irrevocable, induces juries to decline to convict, and leads on the slightest pretexts to petitions for mercy to the Minister of Justice, and to pleas of insanity, neither of which are desirable in the interests of justice. (6) Punishment 
ought to be reformatory, not vindictive. (7) Capital punishment has already been abolished in several foreign countries without ill-effect.
Towards the convicted murderer the State acts as though he were not fit to live. Then, let me ask: Is the Justice Department of Canada quite sure that he is fit to die? Having been condemned to death, he is apparently a fit subject for any kind of outrage. On the day of execution the wretched man is led out towards the gallows, and with revolting hypocrisy the burial service is read over him. One must not overlook the degrading effect of such scenes upon all who take part in them and receive payment for doing so. Take, for instance, the chaplain, the warders, and, above all, the hangman, who earns his living solely by taking other peoples' lives.
In many European countries, though still at times in force, capital punishment has been practically abrogated through the marked growth of humanitarian sentiments. In Austria, between 1870 and 1879, eight hundred were sentenced to death, and of these only sixteen were executed. In Sweden, during the same period, out of thirty-two sentenced only three were executed; in Denmark one out of ninety-four; in Bulgaria seven out of two hundred and forty-nine, and I am safe in saying that with the advance of civilization and Christianity, there is a tendency all over the world to look upon the death penalty as unwarrantable.
We all believe in a future state, better in every way than the present one, yet we pay that future state the sorry compliment of hurling into it, in the most degrading manner, the souls of those whom we consider unfit to live, and we thrust that soul into eternity before the appointed time. The very phase, 'May God have mercy on your soul,' is a flagrant abuse of words; it implies that the mercy which is lacking on this side may or may not be granted on the other. It repudiates human responsibility, and implies that one who is not fit to live in man's world is to be sent into God's world, as though the refuse of this world was good enough to be ushered into the next. How many men have been hanged on circumstantial evidence which has afterwards been disproved?-but life is gone and no redress is possible. We almost had just such a case in the city of Montreal a few weeks ago, when a poor Italian was found to be innocent and was let out after having spent five years in the peni-

tentiary. That man might have been hanged at the time of his conviction. There is no question about it that there have been a great many hanged who were innocent. The matter is therefore quickly hushed up and forgotten. Is it not better and wiser that ninety-nine guilty people should go free than that one innocent man should be hanged?
One argument in favour of capital punishment is that it acts as a deterrent. Against this we have the fact that murders do not as a rule increase where capital punishment is abolished. Capital punishment is a legal crime, and is morally indefensible. All who take part in it are tainted with bloodguilt-iness, from the judge down to the hangman, as well as the nation that passively allows such things to be. For crime does not increase in other countries in consequence of abolition. Why should it in Canada? Canadians as a rule are a most law-abiding people.
Viewing the question of the death penalty in its broadest sense, we are led to look at it from many aspects. What effect, for instance, has it upon a murder already committed? It certainly does not cure the crime. That is past cure. The deed is done and the victim is beyond help. We cannot remedy one murder by committing another. Whether this is under the sanction of law or not does not alter the principle upon which this so-called justice is founded. Retribution in this sense is but another name for revenge. When we stigmatize it thus, we approach the real point at issue. Society has no more moral right to take this punishment upon itself than has an individual who is the nearest of kin to the victim. The law holds the matter in its own hands on the plea that the murderer shall have a fair trial. So far there is a show of justice in the proceedings; but if found to be guilty, the result to the culprit is the same. Society then simply revenges the death, instead of allowing any single individual to do so. So far as the criminal is concerned, we have done nothing more than kill him. It has been an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. The account in this respect is squared up, blood for blood. The crime of murder is expiated-technically and judicially speaking, remedied.
I shall direct the attention of the House to a few of the different countries and states where the death penalty has been abolished * and in every case with good results. It was abolished in Holland in 1870; in Belgium, in 1863; in Roumania, in 1864; in
Portugal, in 1865. In most of the
5 p.m. Swiss Cantons it has been abolished since 1874. In the state of Michigan it was abolished in 1846; in Rhode Island, in 1852; in Wisconsin in 1853; in Maine, in 187.6, and in Kansas, in 1908. The death penalty has been abolished in the state of Michigan, which borders on the province of Ontario. I claim that the people of Ontario are of as good character as the people of Michigan, and they should abolish the death penalty also.
The following are extracts from letters, which I have received from secretaries of state of the different states;
In the state of Michigan the death penalty was abolished in the year 1846, and the law was amended so that life imprisonment was substituted for same. The state of Michigan is so contented with the law as it stands to-day that no person would even think of suggesting that capital punishment should be re-enacted, and I am very proud to say that there has not been a case where any person has suffered the death penalty in that state during the last eighty-three years.
Rhode Island is just in the same position >as the state of Michigan. Here is what the secretary says;
After a great deal of trouble and time given to it by what was known over in that district as the ' Society of Friends,' better known in Canada as ' Quakers,' the experiment was tried, and capital punishment was abolished in Rhode Island on February 11, 1852, and the experiment has worked out so satisfactorily that no one would suggest going back to the old days of capital punishment, .and there has not been a case of the death penalty enforced in this state for sixty-one years,
I read portion of a letter received from the Secretary of State of Wisconsin:
Capital punishment was abolished in 1853, largely at the request of the religious bodies of that state headed by the Quakers. We do not believe that the number of capital offences has been increased; in fact, we are sure they have not been increased since the abolition of capital punishment, because we do not believe that the infliction of capital punishment is a preventive for the commission of capital crimes. Since the abolition of capital punishment in this state there has never been, nor is there at the present time, any sentiment in favour of restoring it; in fact, we do not believe that any Bill has ever been introduced into the legislature to have capital punishment restored. The people of the state of Wisconsin do not believe that the state should legalise the taking of M human life, nor do we believe that the mere legalizing of the taking of a human life relieves the person, who acts in a justice department or as executioner, of the moral responsibility of the taking of such a life, and further believe that, whenever an execution takes place, it has a very demoralizing effect upon the community in which it takes place, and that

it has a demoralizing: effect upon the State generally.
Permit me to give you the history of capital punishment in the state of Maine, which borders on New Brunswick. Capital punishment in Maine was abolished in 1876. This was largely due to the influence of the religious bodies, again headed by the Quakers of that state. The secretary of that state says:
The strong minority opposed to the death penalty, had much to do with its non-enforcement from 1837 to 1867, and the enforcement of the law from the latter date until 1876 had more to do with Its abolition; since the executions during this period awakened discussion and debate upon the subject, and brought the people face to face with their responsibility and duty in the matter. Prof. Upham, of Bow-doin College, and Rev. Sylvester Judd, of Augusta, Me., by their speeches and written arguments against capital punishment, created a deep seated and widespread sentiment in the minds of the people against this mode of punishment. The Society of Friends within our state, were ever urgent in their petitions to the legislature, for the abolition of the death penalty. The sentiment of our people is now so strongly against capital punishment, that it may be safely assumed that it will never again be enacted in Maine.
The Secretary of State of Kansas writes:
Capital punishment in the State of Kansas was abolished between five and six years ago by the action of the legislature of that state. Prior to that time, when a man was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death, he was sent to the penitentiary to be held at hard labour one year, and after that to be hanged, upon the order of the Governor. No Governor in the history of that state has ever ordered a hanging, with one exception. Public sentiment has always been against it, and it would not have permitted the execution of criminals. It required no force or argument to induce the legislature to repeal the capital punishment law. I know of no one who thinks that the repeal of the capital punishment law has increased crime.
These twelve states and countries all admit that, from the time that capital punishment has been abolished, capital crime has not increased, and that in most of them it has decreased. It is a fact that all over the world, wherever capital punishment has been abolished, capital crime has decreased.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER: My hon. friend has read instances of twelve different countries in which capital punishment has been abolished. Are we to infer that in all other countries capital punishment is still the rule? .


Robert Bickerdike: It is still the rule, I believe, but it is not so popular as it

was in the days of our ancestors. After all, capital punishment is neither more nor less than an off-shoot of the dark ages. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce well knows that capital punishment is a relic of barbarism, may I say a relic of Neroism, a relic of the dark and pestilential days of Nero's misrule in Rome. I believe that the day is coming when in every country where the people believe in a Creator, capital punishment will and must be abolished. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is well aware that in England this was a burning question during the middle and latter years of the last century. A commission was appointed to inquire into the result of the abolition of capital punishment in other countries. A report was made, signed by Stephen Lushington, John Bright, Charles Neate and William Ewart.


Mr. LANCASTER:: What year was that?


Robert Bickerdike: On the 8th of
January, 1866. The report stated:
The undersigned, Members of Tour Majesty's Commission are of opinion that Capital Punishment might safely, and with advantage to the community, be at once abolished.
This was signed by these four gentlemen, amongst them the Rt. Hon. John Bright.
There is another case here cited by the Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice O'Hagan, probably one of the most eminent jurists of that day. He says:
I am of opinion-with much deference for the great authority of those who think otherwise-that the great weight of evidence and reason is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.
One of the most revered saints, St. Augustin, deplores the fact that capital punishment was in existence in his day. The proposal to abolish capital punishment was brought up on several occasions in the House of Commons and was always supported by John Bright. The first occasion was March 18, 1848, when Mr. Ewart moved for leave to bring in a Bill repealing the punishment of death. It was defeated by 152 nays to 66 yeas. Mr. Ewart brought forward his Bill in the ensuing session and the motion was lost by a majority, this time, of only 24. Mr. Bright again supported the measure, and of this address his biographer says:
Mr. Bright again supported the proposition. He said it was unnecessary to to go into
what was called the Scripture argument, but he

reminded members that for some centuries after the commencement of the Christian era, no person holding:, or professing to hold, the Christian religion, was known to interfere in capital punishments.
I will now cite a few of the authorities I have bejore me, and I think the House will be convinced-if they are not too prejudiced in this matter-that the time has come when capital punishment should be abolished. And let me say that if the Union Jack is to continue to float over this young nation in the future as in the past-and it will-as the emblem of freedom, fairplay, justice and mercy, this Parliament can no longer shirk its duty in this matter. Let me give brief summaries of statements made before the Capital Punishment Commission in Great Britain in 1866:
Hon. George Denman, M.F., thinks that on the whole more is done by capital punishment as it at present exists, to induce murders than to prevent them.
Q. You think that the infliction of capital punishment for murder prevents the certainty of punishment?-A. I think so, most decidedly.
William Tallack said:
Prom documents received from governors of several of the American States it appears that the abolition of capital punishment there has not rendered life less secure.
Mr. Tallack referred to a letter he had received from a gentleman in Montreal Trhom, I have no doubt, some who are here present will remember-Mr. Louis Payette. The name is not properly spelled in the report, but it is quite clear who is referred to. I knew Mr. Payette well. Mr. Tallack says:
I will first read an extract from a letter addressed to me by M. Louis Payette, jailor of the provincial jail at Montreal, dated 27th September, 1864.	... He says, ' Capital
punishment was virtually suspended here (in Canada) from 1838 to 1858, a period of 20 years. The sentences to capital punishment passed during that time were, by the exercise of the Royal prerogative, commuted to imprisonment for life in the provincial penitentiary at Kingston, and the executions since the beginning of 1358 (five in number) have all been public.' I submit that if in Canada they could do without executions for 20 years: although they have appeared since to have returned to capital punishment, there could not have been any great public inconvenience felt, more particularly when we find that there were only five executions in the years which have since elapsed.
Lord Hobart:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. .	.	.With secondary punishment there might possibly be a gain of a deterrent force. .	.	.
Thinks that if capital punishment ever could be carried out with the same certainty and rigour as secondary punishment, it would be a more powerful preventive of crime, but the
case is very far from being so. .	. Thinks
that the deterrent advantages of capital punishment are more than counterbalanced by its accompanying disadvantages, namely, its uncertainty. .	. Objects to capital punishment because it alone is, of all punishments, both irrevocable and irreparable. Other punishments also were irrevocable, but no other punishment is irreparable. .	. Argues
that innocent persons must frequently be convicted and thinks it quite possible that such are occasionally executed.
Q. What has been the result of the attention which you have given to the subject? A, conclusion at which X have arrived is that capital punishment ought to be abolished.
Hilary Nicholas Nissen:
Public punishments have no deterrent effect upon the people. Nor has capital punishment any deterring influence upon the criminal class.
Leone Levi:
Capital punishment is not much of a deterrent to criminals as is proved by the murder of suicides.
Rev. John Jessop:
Capital punishment has not the deterrent effect it is supposed to have. Does not think that when persons commit murder they think of detection. When persons commit a murder or plan it, they do not think they will be found out. In the case of murder for sordid purposes, or murder by poison where property is involved in the result, if persons imagined that they would be found out, they would not commit them. If persons imagined they would be found out, they would not commit murder, unless they were maniacs. As to cases of murder through jealousy, hatred, or any strong impulse, the consequences are never taken into consideration.
John Humphreys Perry, Sergeant-at-Law:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent When Muller murdered Mr. Briggs the idea of capital punishment never entered his mind. The majority of murderers do not belong to the criminal class. The punishment of death has a terror for certain minds when they come face to face with it.
Q. Will you favour the commission with your views generally on the subject of capital punishment? A. 1 am strongly opposed to capital punishment, first on the ground that a government coolly and without passion taking awaiy the life of a human being sets a bad example, and weakens that sense of the sacredness of human life which I believe to be a great social safeguard.
Captain Cartwright:
The punishment of death is not deterrent to the reckless class. The convict class dread perpetual imprisonment more than death. Penal servitude for life has also greater terrors than hanging.
Q. Upon the general question of the abolition of capital punishment are you of the opinion that it should be retained or abolished? A. I think that it should certainly be abolished.

Sir Lawrence Peel:
In India capital punishment would be no deterrent, as death is feared very little.
Rt. Hon. James A. Lawson, Attorney General for Ireland:
The substitution of secondary punishment would be equally as deterrent as the capital penalty. The fear of death has no effect in agrarian murders, from its uncertainty of infliction. In Ireland juries have a strong feeling against capital punishment. What operates upon juries is the taking away of human life, and doing an act which, if wrong, will be doing an Irreparable injury. Such liability to irreparable mistakes would not exist in the case of any other form of punishment, or at least it would be much less probable.
M. Chedieu:
The penalty of death is not a deterrent.
Rev. W. C. Osborn:
Juries naturally incline to find excuse to return the verdict of manslaughter; this also causes some uncertainty as to the operation of the law. It is doubtful whether the general opinion as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment is well founded. Mankind set a high value on life, yet forever risk it for a little gain for the prospect of a little present enjoyment. Capital punishment admits of no remission or alleviation, and that it can only be just where it is carried out upon evidence which must be infallible. The practice, he says, of administering capital punishment negatives the principle that no human evidence can be secure from error; even if the evidence on which' the prisoner is convicted be correct, it is possible that evidence which could have given it a different complexion did exist, although it was not adduced. Capital punishment shuts out from all future remedy any of the mischances to which all human justices must be liable. No state would make any other sentence irrevocable, laying it down as law that if it afterwards appeared that the prisoner had been improperly convicted, he would still be compelled to suffer his entire sentence. Admitting all human law must in execution be subject to occasional error, there is the greater reason to take care that no sentence of the law should be of an irrevocable nature. The Christian religion leaves open hope of pardon through repentance to the worst of men; when a man is hung you cut him off from power to repent.
Lord Osborn:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. It has no effect upon the individuals on whom it would be desirable to have an effect.
Lord Cranworth:	[DOT]
The absolute possibility of hanging an innocent man by mistake cannot be denied, but such a possibility would only arise from not properly distinguishing between murder and manslaughter. . . The common saying is perhaps a true one, that it is better for ninety-nine guilty persons to escape than that one innocent man be hanged.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly:	*
After careful consideration a-nd examination I have come to the conclusion that it is not in any way reasonably to be doubted that in many cases innocent men have been capitally convicted, and in a certain number of instances, few of course, but yet formidable in numbers, have been actually executed.	[DOT]
Sir Fitzroy Kelly goes on to cite a number of cases where innocent men have been hanged, and deplores the fact that they can never return. He was asked a question and gave his answer as follows:
Q. Will you give the commission the opinion which you have formed generally on the subject of capital punishment?
A. I have for a long time been of opinion that capital punishment ought to cease, and time and observation and experience have only strengthened my opinions, I might say my convictions, upon that subject.
Hon. George Denman:
Capital punishment leads to the acquittal of many men who would otherwise most certainly be convicted; that juries are indisposed to convict in capital cases. He goes on to cite a number of cases where it is well known that the parties were guilty, but the jury refused to convict. In these cases if the accused had been tried for manslaughter, they would assuredly have been convicted .
Sir George Grey:
Juries generally yield to the opinion of the judge. He mentions a case where the jury asked the judge whether they could bring in a verdict of manslaughter. The judge said; * No, it is either a verdict of murder or nothing; * and they brought in a verdict of ' not guilty.' They would have found a verdict of manslaughter if they could. There is, he says, less disposition perhaps, on the part of juries to find a woman guilty than there is in the case of a man.
Mr. Sergeant Parry:
Objects to capital punishment as being irrevocable and irremediable and does not think that any human tribunal should place itself in a position of being incapable, even at the last moment, of doing justice to an innocent man.
Mr. Thomas Beggs:
There have been some, though not many capital convictions of innocent meif during the last twenty years.
I will not detain the House much longer, but there are a few authorities that I would like to place on record, more especially in view of the fact that I see my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) in his seat. From a work on ' The Criminal and the Community,' by J. Devon, I take the following:
' Incidentally those who are most insistent on the employment of the executioner show that

they possess a fair share of the same spirit that induced the act which they condemn.
They are rightly indignant, but they do not seem to see that justice and bad temper are not the same thing. When a man takes life, in order to show him the sacredness of life the law takes his. It is a lesson to him, and there is this to be said-that it certainly prevents him from offending again. Now, if we are better than those whom we judge and condemn, why do we treat them as they have treated others? For the law to hire a man to kill another is a queer Way to teach men to respect life. I have seen a number of rather tough specimens under sentence of death, and have watched the effect on warders of intimate association with them. They have had to be constantly in the company of the condemned, for although a man may be condemned to be killed, he must not be allowed to kill himself. We know too little of the possibilities of life to be justified in condemning any one to death. The infliction of the death penalty has no good effect on those engaged in it. I have never seen any one who had anything to do with it who was not the worse for it, and as for the doctor who must be in attendance, it is an outrage on all his professional as well as his personal feelings. The physician is taught that it is his duty to save life, apart altogether from its personal value.
From ' Asehaffenburg's Crime and its Repression/ I quote:
It is essential that we should decide whether capital punishment acts as a deterrent. I can scarcely believe that it does. German statistics do indeed show that the number of those condemned to death has decreased somewhat, hut only a very little. Belgium, on the other hand, where no capital punishment has been carried out for years, has had no increase of the crime for which capital punishment is the penalty. Observations show that the effect of executions is by no means deterrent. Ferri had an opportunity of being present at two executions in Paris. His remarks show that the effect on the population of Paris was the very opposite of what was hoped for. Instead of dull terror, there was curiosity, pleasure in the unusual sensation, betting as to what the demeanor of the condemned man would be- everything, in fact, rather than the solemnity suitable to the solemn occasion. It can positively be asserted that the peculiar role played by a person condemned to death, the attention that his deeds, his life, his behaviour at the time of the execution, arouse, thanks to the public love of sensation to which the press caters, are an actual attraction to a number of psycho-pathological individuals. The fear of lifelong imprisonment would probably have a more wholesome effect on the peculiar individualities of assassins and their ilk than does the martyr's halo of glory, the imaginary fame of a sensational execution. Whatever our opinion of capital punishment may be, its retention will have just as little material influence on criminality as its abolition.
Havelock Ellis says:

A writer in Elizabeth's reign says that in Henry VIII's time seventy-two thousand thieves were hanged.
Think of that in dear old England! The statement is set down on hearsay evidence only, but it is sufficient to show that the number must have been very large. About . a century ago, more criminals, it is said, were put to death in England than in any other part of Europe. The writer says that many persons still living remember the days of wholesale hanging, and even the execution of a child of twelve for rioting. He claims it is less than half a century since a child of nine was condemned to death for stealing paint, valued at five cents, and on many occasions since men were hanged for stealing sheep and horses and post office letters. There can be little doubt that capital punishment is dying out. On the whole we may perhaps be well satisfied that the shameful practice of capital punishment, and of hiring for a few dollars a black-hearted assassin to accomplish a sentence which the judge would not have the courage to carry out, is threatened with extinction in civilized countries. To punish murder by lifelong imprisonment, as Sir Robert Rawlinson observed, is a far severer fate than sudden death, but is not so revolting.
I have asked the Government and I have asked Parliament to give this a trial, to make the experiment, as has been done in these other places. I believe, honestly, before God, that after it has been tried we will never return to the present system.
I do not believe that any hon. member of this House who believes in a Creator, who believes in eternity, will vote for this legalized murder of a fellow-citizen. Why should a Government stoop to engage a man, under contract for so many dollars per head, to drive poor criminals into eternity. What is there to be gained by it? If it is not a deterrent, then why do it? If it is not a deterrent it becomes simply revenge. If it is not a deterrent, no country in the world, no Christian land at least, will continue it. I call upon the members of the House on both sides who believe in a Creator to rise in their places now and stamp out this legalized murder that has been so long existent in this country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member apparently proposes to make no distinction between murder and manslaughter. The seotion as drawn would make manslaughter and murder punishable in the same way. Is that the intention?


Robert Bickerdike: Exactly; I intend that.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister of *Trade and Commerce):	I have listened
with a great deal of interest to the address of my hon. friend on this question. I have my own ideas with regard to the matter, but I do not hold them so strongly, speaking for myself alone, that I am not open to argument. My hon. friend has traversed a great deal of ground; he has brought up a great many arguments, and has	buttressed them by the
opinions of a great many individuals. But there are an infinitely greater number of people who have made arguments and given opinions that he has not cited. While a fair array has been presented as supporting the case made by my hon. friend, the world is so large and there are so many people in it that it is a little difficult to argue that the best has been advocated by those few who have been mentioned, or that a policy should be established upon what the hon. gentleman has cited. I do not think this House is disposed on so slight a discussion as we have had to-day to affirm the principle that capital punishment should be abolished, and thereby change what has been the law and the policy in this country for so many years. I had hoped that enough interest would have been taken in this subject by this House-that is if there is an interest taken in it by the House-to have provoked an expression of opinion for and against by members on both sides. I have no doubt at all that my hon. friend is convinced himself that he is right. But because he is himself convinced that he is right he is not justified in maintaining that everybody who does not agree with him is wrong. I know my hon. friend used two or three expressions that . would read us out of decent society on earth and out of any quarter at all in the world to come if we voted against what he considers to be right. But I suppose that is more a matter of argument than of conviction. It is very arguable, I think, that we must not necessarily perpetuate for all time to come modes of punishment which are of very old date and came to be established when the conditions of human life in the world were quite different from what they are to-day. But it is also not allowable, I think, to argue that because a thing dates far back, either as a custom or a precept of law or a method of administration, that it is therefore not entitled to hold its place at the present time. We hope that the

world has not always been wrong in every conclusion that it has come to. Some of us, I think, hold and may well hold that there are certain modes and expressions of thought in the activities of life that are pretty nearly as old as the world, and they hold as well to-day as in early times. It is no doubt a gruesome thing to take a man up and hang him by the neck until he is dead and usher his soul .into the other world, but society is compact, it aggregates its units and it formulates its methods of procedure for its own protection, and there is something still to be said for a means of punishment in extreme cases which has *been at one time adopted !by all nations, and which is to-day carried out and adhered to by the greater number of what we may call the civilized nations of the world. My hon. friend has cited twelve cases. Amongst these are a number of different states of the United States, so that even in the United States itself, to which he has appealed and which is a great and progressive country, a very large proportion of the states have not yet adopted my hon. friend's views. I have not given special attention to the matter, but it is an impression I have had that there have been Christian and civilized countries that have abolished capital punishment and after an experience of what has followed upon its abolition, have reverted to capital punishment. I think there are cases of that on record. I am quite certain that I have read very strong arguments from states and countries where capital punishment has been abolished on the line that the abolition of capital punishment has lessened, as it were, the respect for the execution of law in extreme cases and has not had a salutary effect upon the general morals as relating to the criminal acts of the community at large.
A man might be extreme enough to say that no individual man has a right to deprive another individual man of the liberty of physical or mental action. He has not, in a sense, and he might argue from that, that a collection of men had no right to do it. But society would be impossible, unless the better sentiment for law and order in society had some physical means of deterring those who would flout it and put it to scorn. It might, perhaps, be pushing it to an extreme to say, that if you argue that men in a civilized community compacted together to preserve what is best amongst them and to keep law and order, have not a right to take a criminal of the first-class and put him out of the possibility of ever plaguing society again; that it

follows they have not the right to keep him from the exercise of his physical liberty and various other things which belong to a man, naturally, so long as he conducts himself properly in his relations with his fellow men. That may be an extreme putting of the argument. My hon. friend, has this answer to that: that you may deprive a man of his liberty, and you may deprive him of his life, but if you simply deprive ' him of his liberty, and it so happens that wrongful evidence has been given and therefore a faulty judgment rendered, some reparation can be made if he is still in the land of the living, whereas in the other case, he has gone to his Judge and he is outside of our jurisdiction entirely. I am not going to say that our methods in the administration of justice have been in the past what they might be, or are to-day what they might be, but I think we are making continual improvement, and the time may come where it will be unnecessary to have such extreme punishment as capital punishment is, and administered as it has been for the deterrence of great criminals. That time may come, but all that I have to say now is, that whilst expressing my own opinion that the tirhe has not yet come-which I am not holding obstinately, and with regard tP which I am quite open to conviction-I do -not think it is proper for us in this House, after the short discussion we have had of this matter this afternoon, to affirm as a principle, that this House agrees on the second reading of this Bill, that capital punishment should be abolished. If we are not ready for the full discussion of it with a view to ultimate action, I think it would be unfortunate for us, by a vote of silence, as it appears at the present time this would be, to change our policy in this drastic way. The matter is entirely open for the members of the House to discuss, but rather than a vote should be taken and the principle affirmed I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree to some extent with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, not so much that I would like to see the debate adjourned, but I would like the matter to be discussed as thoroughly as it possibly can be, and a vote taken upon this very important matter. I do not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this House is disposed to let this Bill pass by a silent vote, without giving expression to their opinions. I
have certain opinions, perhaps not very strong, yet opinions which I have gained from nearly a quarter of a century's practice at law, and I must say that my opinion from that long experience is rather opposed to ^the principle sought for by my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike). I cannot bring myself to believe as society and conditions exist in Canada to-day, that it would be in the best interests of the public to have capital punishment abolished, although I must congratulate my hon. friend from Montreal on the very able presentment of his case. It shows great reading, great learning, deep thinking, a big mind and a big heart; nevertheless, a lawyer might be equally sincere and arrive at different conclusions from my hon. friend. I suppose we are all liable to arrive at our conclusions in this world from our personal surroundings, and what we have met with personally in our affairs.


George Eulas Foster: I understand then, that
my hon. friend would like to discuss the question?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would.


George Eulas Foster: I merely made my motion on the assumption that the House did not wish to discuss the question any longer, and as I think under my motion my hon. friend would be out of order, in discussing this, I withdraw my motion for adjournment, since I learn that my hon. friend and others wish to carry on the discussion.
Motion for adjournment of debate withdrawn.	'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Following up the line of thought which I was trying to give the House, I repeat that we probably all draw our conclusions from our own experience of life. I have had the experience of having to prosecute in two or three cases of capital crime, and I have defended more than half a dozen, and I think that my hon. friend the member for Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) has proceeded in the first place upon wrong premises. His idea seems to be that the underlying principle behind capital punishment is revenge or as he put it: the man is not fit to live, therefore hang him. I cannot agree with that. I do not think that was the original intention of the law, and I know it is not the present intention of the law of Canada. I do not believe it is (the law which operates with judges and jurors and the public generally in enforcing this law.

The idea of enforcing capital punishment is that it may deter other people from committing the same crime. My hon. f'iend (Mr. Bikerdike) gave us a number of countries and states in which capital punishment had been abolished, and he read statements from different officials that in their opinion it had not increased the number of capit .1 crimes. I am very sorry that my hon. friend did not give the statistics. I happen to live alongside one of the states of the Union where capital punishment has been abolished, and while I have not the statistics, yet I am satisfied that thefe are a great many more oases of capital crime in the state of Maine than in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which have practically the same population. I live near enough to the border to know what is going on in their courts, and in my opinion there are at least three or four cases of capital crime committed in the state of Maine to one case in the Maritime provinces. I do not know if it is the result of the abolishment of capital punishment, and I am sorry to say I have not the statistics. I am only giving the House my own opinion, gained through a pretty intimate knowledge of what is going on on both sides of the line. I have also had experience in my own home, whicii convinces me that capital punishment is <a deterrent. I do not want to go into parochial affairs, but I may say that one parish in New Brunswick furnished more criminal cases for twenty or thirty years, I believe, than any other part of Canada. Abort five or six years ago the death penalty was imposed in two cases of capital crime from that.parish, and from that time up to the present day, there has not been a solitary criminal sent to the penitentiary from that portion of the province. Crime has practically ceased to exist in that portion of New Brunswick which was almo=' infamous as a result of the condition of affairs that existed prior to that time. You may say that that is only an incident, but yet it is that which I have observed and it is from our personal observations that we possibly form our conclusions.
I can agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike), when he states that the carrying out of a sentence is always attended with gruesome scenes. He referred to the case in Paris where revolting scenes occurred and where men were betting on what the prisoner would do. I dare say that that may be true of Paris and it may be

true of certain portions of England. I do not know that it is an ennobling sight when we see a public execution in any town in Canada. The original idea was that these hangings should take place in the most public manner possible in order that the whole world might see them and benefit by the experience. In later days there has been some attempt made to conceal the actual carrying out of the sentence. It must be done in the jail yard and, I think, in every case, the actual scene is surrounded by a screen. I know that in my own town an execution took place six or seven years ago in which, I am sorry to say, a greater amount of interest was shown than-1 would like to have seen shown. I would be very sorry to see public executions take place in my own constituency and I do not want to see them in any other constituency in Canada. For that reason I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he might very well take into consideration the advisability of having these unfortunate people put to death not by hanging until they are dead, but by electrocution in some central prison where these revolting scenes would not be witnessed.


Mr. BRODER:: Was it a public execution?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Practically so.- These
executions are held in the jail yard, there is usually, I believe, a screen of some kind built around, but they are pretty nearly public and many more people go to see them than I think ought to be allowed to go. There are newspaper men, jurors and physicians, and I think that if these executions, or the putting to death, took place in a public institution like our penitentiaries, and that by electricity, it would be a much more humane way of carrying out the sentence of the court than this method of hanging.
I cannot bring myself to agree with my hon. friend from Montreal, that the time has come when we should abolish capital punishment. My principal reason for that, as I said before, is that capital punishment is a deterrent of crime and not a retributive measure. In a young country like Canada we are bringing in hundreds of thousands of people from every corner of the habitable globe. You may say: Well, your immigration officers ought to keep out undesirable immigrants. It is impossible to do that. In many cases men come in who may appear to be all right. They possess the necessary qualifications, they possess the necessary amount of currency, and therefore they become citizens

of the country. But we do not know what their real, inside motives may be. Then again, we have to bring in a large number of ordinary labourers to carry on the great works which are proceeding in this country. They have been coming in the past and they will continue to come in the future; in fact, we could not continue to carry on the great public works of the country if we did not have foreign labourers in large numbers. During the construction of the Transcontinental railway, not two years ago, there were three of the most brutal murders committed by foreign labourers in the northern portion of New Brunswick which the annals of this country can show. In one case a peddler called Paddy Green, well known to the railway construction camps east of the Great Lakes, was starting out on a Sunday morning travelling towards the wilderness when he was shot from ambush by two Italians. His companion was shot and wounded but he succeeded in getting away. These men were captured and sentenced to be hanged, and, as a matter of fact, were hanged. But it developed in the course of time that these men stated that they understood that no man was ever hanged for murder in Canada, but was only sentenced to the penitentiary for from two to five years. These are the conditions which have existed in the province of New Brunswick for the last five or six years, and these are the facts which stare us in the face. With a large number of foreign labourers coming in here possessed of such ideals of the sanctity of life and the rights of citizens as these two men possessed, I think we would be going a long way towards throwing society into a state of chaos if we were to abolish capital punishment in Canada at the present time.
That is only an illustration, but there is another. These same two men who were afterwards sentenced to death claimed there were three other men who were accessories before the fact and who had incited them to commit the murder. They further expressed the belief that if the relatives of one of these men had furnished sufficient money he could have saved their lives. With people of this class in the country holding views of that description, I do not think the time is ripe when this Parliament should declare in favour of the Bill introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike). I give him all credit for sincerity in the matter. I respect his humanity, I respect his sincere interest in the welfare of the public, but I am afraid that it is a case of misguided sympathy with a class of people who, perhaps are not very much entitled
to sympathy. This goes very much along the line of the women of all grades of society who will flock to the jail yard, who will flock to the prison, and who will smother prisoners with flowers and edibles of every kind that can appeal to them. There seems to be a certain maudlin sympathy for a man who has made himself notorious by committing a crime. As long as these things go on, until society reaches the point at which people do not need such a deterrent, until the time comes when no man feels that he can take life with impunity, I think we had better leave the law as it is.
My hon. friend has given citations from ancient reports to show that fifty years ago a child could be hanged for stealing a five cent loaf of bread and if such were the condition of the law to-day, we in the interests of humanity, would agree with him that the law should be changed. But there are practically to-day only two cases in which capital punishment is inflicted in Canada. There is high treason and it will have to be a pretty serious case before a court will allow that penalty provided by the law to be carried into effect; the second is murder, and the third is rape. The third, I think, we have almost dismissed from the category, which brings it down practically to one case, and that is murder. The jury can always bring in a verdict of manslaughter if it chooses to do so instead of murder, although, if the indictment is for murder alone, the verdict cannot be for a less offence than that of manslaughter. The citations which my hon. friend has furnished refer to a time when the matter was in a very different position from that in which it is at the present time. In fact our law permits capital punishment only in cases of treason and murder. I think my hon. friend, while he has given the matter a great deal of study, will be convinced when he gives the matter a little further consideration and understands better the actual conditions of the enforcement of the criminal law in this country, that, while his ideas are humanitarian, yet they are hardly practical under the present state of society in Canada. Therefore, his ideas should not be carried into eflect.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew):	Mr. Speaker, I have not, during the present session, made very many speeches, but on this occasion I feel that

I should not be doing myself justice if I allowed the opportunity to pass without voicing my views on this question. I am glad of this opportunity to speak, for this is a question that lays bare the inmost thoughts of men on the subject of their fellowmen in a way that is not called for in most of the debates of a legislature. It is a question the discussion of which need bear no tinge of party, a question higher than party, a question of more real import to the well-being of the nation and the advancement of humanity than even the highest type of partyism. Most of our legislation of necessity deals with things that are material

the resources of the country, our increasing population, our financial situation, our exports, imports, etc. These are highly important, undoubtedly, all of them of vast interest to our native born people and also to those who are induced either by conditions here or by conditions in their home countries to come and make themselves citizens of the land which we think the best country in the world. This theme opens up broader considerations than even our prosperity in a material way; it enables one to view the situation from the sociological standpoint and to deal in a matter somewhat new to legislatures with a question that vitally affects the whole social and moral fabric. No matter what views we may hold on these other public questions, there is a ground on which all men, whether in public or in private life, can stand as one, and that is on the uplifting of the people, of whom they themselves are a part. I have had my name connected, since coming into publio life, with a good many measures which I thought were for the benefit of the people of Canada, but I wish to say, Sir, and 1 say it conscientiously, that I do not believe I have ever had my name connected with a measure that has been of more far reaching importance than the one introduced by the hon. fnember for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). I congratulate him on his courage in bringing this Bill before the House-courage, I say, because I believe the majority of this House do not view the matter as he views it and as I view it. Still, no great advance has ever been made along these lines till some man has had the courage to take one step in advance. And I believe that in the years to come the name of Robert Bickerdike will stand out large on the pages of Canadian history. He has dealt with this question in an exhaustive manner, calling to his aid some 
of the highest authorities, and supporting his case with the record of experiences of other countries and the results that have been obtained in those countries by this advanced measure. It is true that many years have elapsed since this form of putting men to death-or any form of putting men to death-became a part of the statutes of the various countries. I might go further than my hon. friend has gone and say that in the broader field I am opposed, generally speaking, to the sacrifice of life by war. There are cases, of course, when war is necessary, but those cases are few at the present day as compared with those of days gone by when the arbitrament of the sword seemed to be the only solution of international difficulties. In those days-and we are perhaps too much inclined to imitate them-a man's greatness was measured by the number of men he had slain during his lifetime. Those were the days when the sword was drawn on the slightest provocation, and it is strange to say-or rather it is not strange to say-that the death penalty by law was equally liberally meted out. These are not the days which we in our day should imitate. It is true, we have had rapid advances, and to-day life is held more sacred than it was a century ago. But still, Sir, I am firmly of the opinion that the people of this country do not hold human life as sacred as they ought. If I might be permitted a word of criticism, I believe that our educational system lacks in that it does not impress on the young of our land the sacredness of human life. In our histories, in our fiction, and in the textbooks of our schools as well, we find glorification of the men who have won victories by the slaughter of their fellow-men. In our fiction sometimes men are glorified not for having taken the lives of men in battle, but for slaying them on the least provocation as private citizens. I believe a benefit would be conferred upon the State if in our textbooks chapters were given pointing out to the youth the very great sacredness of human life, and conveying the lesson that the shedding of blood is perhaps the greatest crime of which man can be guilty. In my reading -and I may say that I was brought up in a family where theology was discussed a great deal-I have never found anything from the divine standpoint that has changed the Ten Commandments. I have never yet found anything to convince me that human law ought to be proposed as an amendment to the Ten Commandments.

The Commandment: ' Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour ' is just as strong to-day as on the day it was written, and our legislation upholds that Commandment by enactments which mete out punishment to the man who bears false witness against his neighbour. But when we come to the Commandment ' Thou shalt not kill/ we have moved an amendment to the effect that the individual shall not kill but the State may kill if it wants to. I have never heard any argument, though I have studied this question a good deal, that convinces me that any man or body of men have the right, or have ever had the right, to enact legislation which will give them the legal right to kill one of their fellowmen. I believe that only He who gave life has the right to take it away. You will say to me at once:	what of the man who takes
life-should he go unpunished? The man who takes the life of a fellow creature has committed a crime against the human law as well as the Divine law, and, of course, punishment should be meted out to him. But I am arguing on the ground that capital puishment has no divine authority, and I question the right of any man, from the moral standpoint, to enact legislation which enables him to contravene that commandment which is old, yet ever new: 'Thou shalt not kill.' Are we not in legislation of this kind adhering strictly to the old law which was enacted and enforced by our forefathers in the time when they were, as we, at least, contend, not up to our standard of civilization and education? The world moves, and we should move with it. In applying capital punishment to a fellow-being I cannot see that we are applying to him any law different from that which we apply to the lower animals. In the various provinces we have legislative enactments providing that certain animals can be slaughtered if they commit certain depredations, and it cannot be said that we are not applying the same law to our fellow-beings when we say: If a man commits a certain depredation, kill him. I challenge any one to submit any divine authority for such an action. I feel very strongly on this matter; my convictions are not of the moment, I have held them all my life, and have given the matter some study. Some years ago when I was in the legislature of the province of Ontario, I had occasion to look into the statistics, some of which have been submitted by my hon. friend the member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) to-day. I convinced myself then-I cannot bring the
figures to my mind at the present time- that in every State of the Union wherein capital punishment had been abolished, the benefits were clearly evident, and crime of murder had not increased. A comparison has been made here to-day of crime in the Maritime provinces and crime in the state of Maine. I submit that that is not a fair comparison. In the state of Maine the law is not recent, but if you take any of the States of the Union wherein capital punishment has been abolished in recent years, and compare the criminal conditions during a term of years before capital punishment was abolished with conditions during a period of years afterward, and the benefit that has resulted will be readily observed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: How does the hon.
gentleman explain that?


George Perry Graham: Men are improving every day, and although we have the old enactment, if I may so call it, of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' and 'whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,' these principles are giving way to the new thought of a new ' era. The men of to-day are inclined to be influenced by the Sermon on the Mount, rather than by the old ethics of many centuries ago. The improved condition is brought about by the education and treatment of the man, by his being uplifted through moral influences, and by that which to my mind is fully as strong-the human touch and the human sympathy of his fellow beings, which enables every man, in a measure at least, to look upon his fellow man as a friend and not as an enemy. In years gone by the entire world was much interested in the erection of great monuments to men whose valour had been proven on fields of battle-and great men they were. But that age is rapidly passing away, and in the years to ccme monuments will be erected to men, not because of deeds of valour they performed in slaying their fellow men, but because of their deeds of kindness and the good they did to their fellow beings as they went through life. I am fully convinced
and hon. gentlemen will, I am sure, all agree with me in this-that the supreme duty of every human being-particularly those in this House, in the legislative halls of the world, and in < he highest walks of life, ought to be to leave the world somewhat better because of their having lived in it, and anything that tends to that end

should have our heartiest support. Does capital punishment reduce crime? I think not. I am opposed to it because I believe the object of punishment is overlooked in its infliction. We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we >are inclined to say: ' It serves him right.' That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ' an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless. None of us want that law applied to ourselves; we are always ready to throw ourselves into the great sea of humanity, trusting to the guidance and kind heartedness of our fellow beings to treat us just as they themslves would be treated.
I do not believe that anything is gained by capital punishment. What is the object of punishment? It is not retribution, although I fear that is the view held by many persons. Punishment for crime has two objects. One object is the- protection of society, and the other ought to be the reformation of the individual. If society is to be protected, it can be protected just as well by shutting the criminal up during the remainder of his life, and making him contribute to the welfare of the family which he has, perhaps, deprived of its head, or by his labour contribute to the state if circumstances are otherwise. Society is just as well protected in that way as it would be if the man were hanged, and the spectacle given to the world of an entire nation taking hold of one defenceless man and putting him to death in the name of the law. Perhaps you will not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that there is in every man an inherent good which can be cultivated if that man has the proper surroundings and the proper instruction. I myself take the ground emphatically that there are few criminals in the world who cannot by proper treatment be largely reclaimed to themselves at least, if not to the community. It might not, and possibly would not in all cases be safe to allow these men -their freedom, but I believe that, if an examination of four-fifths of the criminals of the Dominion of Canada to-day were made it would be found that by the influence of proper surroundings -and .proper teaching m-any of these persons could be reclaimed an-d made

good citizens, better for this world, -and surely better for the world to come. On the ground that I belive it wrong for even the State to take life, I am in favour of my hon. friend's motion. I am in favour of it on the second ground that I believe capital punishment does not add any protection that society would not have, equally strong, by incarceration for life; and on the third ground that I believe it would be possible, in many instances, to reclaim and bring back to manhood the men who otherwise lose their lives and bring disgrace on their families and those connected with them for all time to come. I have spoken strongly on this subject, it is a thing that has been next my heart all my life and I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak a word in favour of this measure. Without giving away any secrets I might say-and members of the Government will realize more fully what I mean-that one of the most trying things I had in my life as a member of a government was the dealing with these cases, believing in my heart that the State had no right, morally, to inflict capital punishment, believing it was not in the interests of society and certainly deprives individuals of all chance to be reclaimed. You can readily understand the position I was often placed in in having to express an opinion on questions of this kind. I speak strongly, I believe what I have said and I believe that the House could not better spend an hour or two than in discussing this great question which will have to be settled within a few years and I hope that what will be said will tend to what I believe is the right solution, the abolition of capital punishment in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), both of whom have spoken calmly on a subject that must be of interest in this country, both of whom have based their remarks on their inmost convictions. As I understand their positions, each of these hon. gentlemen believes that capital punishment is wrong and that the infliction of capital punishment is not a deterrent. I feel satisfied that if I were to enter into a verbal conflict with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) with reference to the Scriptures and knowledge of them, I would surely suffer; but I am a little surprised that the

hon. member for South Renfrew, in justifying the immorality, if I might use the term, of capital punishment, relies wholly on one of the Mosaic laws. The hon. member for South Renfrew draws the attention of the House to the fact that one of the ten commandments is:	' Thou shalt
not kill.' But does he not overlook another fundamental principle both of the Mosaic laws and of the Scripture? Not being entirely sure of my ground, I took the precaution of sending to the library for a Bible and I find that when Noah left the ark the Almighty entered into a compact with him, and this was part of that compact:	' Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man.' I therefore say that if one is to take refuge in the Scriptures for a justification of a belief in capital punishment, that verse would in my opinion be a justification. And there are other passages from the Scriptures that justify a similar belief, one of which my good friend referred to, and the second is that ' he who sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,'-he that killeth a man shall surely be put to death.' That certainly proves that by the Mosaic law there was justification for capital punishment. My good friend from South Renfrew then steps from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a justification for his position. He turns from what one might call the justice of the Scriptures to the mercy of the Scriptures, from Moses as a judge to Christ as a Saviour, and tries to justify by the use of the New Testament a belief that he believes to be right. But are we to-night not bound to consider this subject more from the point of justice than from the point of mercy? If we consider the sparing of the life of the criminal, must we not consider the effect of the sparing of that life upon society? I therefore come to the second point of my argument, "that for social reasons, capital punishment is justifiable as a deterrent. .
The hon. member for Montreal spoke this afternoon in reference to the ridiculous enactments and laws of the eighteenth century. To-night I do not feel called upon to justify or attempt to explain away these laws. The House well knows, and the House must agree, and those who have read must have come to the conclusion that in the eighteenth century there were many ridiculous things, many things that none of us to-day would attempt to justify and would not believe; and I therefore 32
say that in regard to that point I am at one with the hon. member for Montreal in saying that I think society has made a radical advance. But if society has made an advance, if innovations have been to improve, it does not necessarily follow that Are should altogether leave the old methods that were most satisfactory and seek entirely after the new. The hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Biokerdike) spoke to-day, and quoted statements of what various men have said in reference to capital punishment. On a subject of this character it is only reasonable to suppose that as there are many men there would be many minds; but I would like to call his attention to a quotation from Boswell's Life of Johnson to show how radically public opinion has changed on a subject of this character. At one time it was customary in England for a procession to be held from Newgate to Tyburn where the criminal was executed; and when this procession was abandoned and when the criminal was executed at Newgate instead of being led through the streets, this, is what Johnson is alleged to have said:
The age is running mad after innovation; and all the business of the world is to be done in a new way:	Tyburn itself is not
safe from the fury of innovation. .	. No,
sir (said he eagerly), it is not an improvement ; they object that the old method drew together a number of spectators. Sir, executions are intended to draw spectators. If they do not draw spectators, they don't answer their purpose. The old method was satisfactory to all parties; the public was gratified by a procession, and the criminal was supported by it.
I do not believe that there is a man in this House who could square himself with that idea to-day. There is not one of us who would attempt to justify the horrible orgies that took place at a, hanging of the old days, when men bet on the number of minutes a man would live and whether or not an execution would be successfully performed. But as a lawyer I have been impressed as I read with the necessity and effect of capital punishment. It is all very well for me to rise in this House and say that I would be of the opinion that capital punishment would lessen the number of murders and for hon. gentlemen to make an opposite statement, but statistics are cruel. I am reading from a work on criminology published in 1914 and here are some statements made by the learned author:
In Belgium, as a Procurator General of that country has said, the belief that the death penalty was a thing of the past, induced among



the masses by reason of the government's attitude toward capital i sentences for some years prior to 1850, was attended by an increase in the number of the more serious crimes dating from that year.
And following the year 1863 which saw a return to the practice of systematic pardoning, the graver crimes multiplied in an alarming manner, as belief in the abolition of the death penalty became more and more fixed in the popular mind. In point of fact, from 1865 to 1880 prosecuting for murder increased from 34 to 120.
In Prussia, where for many years scarcely any executions have taken place, the criminal statistics exhibit a continual growth in the number of homicides during the period beginning with 1854 and ending with 1880: from 242 in the former year, it rose by an uninterrupted progression to 518 in the latter. In Switzerland, as a result of the abolition of the death penalty in 1874, it has been ascertained that there ensued an increase in this crime- estimated at 75 per cent for five years alone- a circumstance which decided many of the cantons to re-establish the punishment in question.
As for Prance, so long as capital sentences continued to be carried regularly into execution, the more serious forms of crime were on the decrease. But in 1878 President Grevy, apparently desirous of experimenting in arma-vili ' permitted but seven executions, in 1880, but two, while in 1881 he cut the number down to one. As soon as this leniency was noticed by the criminal world, muiuers became more frequent. As against 31 capital sentences in 1877, there were 35 in 1880. Convictions for parricide, which had been 8 in 1S78, increased to 14 in 1882. During this last-mentioned period the number of murders underwent an increase of 36. Since then, the censure of public opinion has caused the pardoning power to be' exercised more "yarintriy. Of the crim inals sentenced to death between 1886 and 1900 almost half were executed, with the result of reducing the number of murders from 224 to 175.
A correspondent writes me from Chile that with the practice there prevailing of systematically commuting the death penalty into that of 15 or 20 years of ' presidio ' there has kept pace an increase of murders and culpable homicides, these crimes from 1898 to 1902 showing an annual average of 950, that is to say, 35 pet-100,000 inhabitants. This extraordinary frequency of offences against human life, adds my informant, renders colonization almost impossible. The peasants are kept in a continued state of fright and their chief concern is to get away from the country districts. Yet in spite of these conditions the newspapers and politicians still make it a point to preach [DOT] assassinophily.'
In Italy, where, except in the army, no executions have taken place since 1876, the more serious forms of crime have attained almost incredible proportions. Whereas in England the annual average of homicides is only 300, Italy, with an almost equal population, has an annual average of 3,814, of which nearly one-third are true eases of murder. Since 189.2 there has been little change in the figures, the number in 1899 being 3,586.

Turning from that to the average of homicidal crimes throughout the world, we find-and I am now quoting from Modern Theories of Criminality-as follows:
Statistics show that criminality of blood leads all other forms in intensity. Below is a table giving the ratio of homicides of all degrees for every million inhabitants:
United States of America . . 120
Italy	
95	to	98Spain	
74	to	77Hungary	
74	to	77Austria	
23	to	26France	
14	to	17Belgium	
14	to	17Switzerland	
14	to	17Denmark	
14	to	17Sweden	
11	to	14Germany	
3	to	11England and Scotland	
5	to	3Holland	
5	to	3
I think, Sir, that that amply demonstrates that capital punishment is a deterrent. England has always stood steadfast by capital punishment. She has been careful in her courts to protect the insane by the use of alienists and expert evidence, but she has manifestedly declared to her underworld that he who takes man's life, if proven guilty, shall have his life taken; and I attribute to the fearless carrying out of her laws, and the justice of her sentences, the righteousness of her people, and respect for law, and I believe that if the same steps are followed in Canada the effect will be the same. I think if we were further to regard this question from the point of view of present expediency, it would be most unwise at this time to try the experiment which the member from Montreal suggests. There never was a time in the history of this country when our shores were being flooded, as they are to-day, with the foreign element. Many of them are immigrants from Southern Europe, whose ideas of citizenship, and right, and wrong, are totally different from ours. They come from a people who believe that justice lies within the power of the individual, that * might is right, and justice is the interest of the stronger,' that each man has a right to avenge personally the wrong he may have suffered. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing for this country, more especially for Western Canada, if those from Southern Europe should be allowed to feel that if they take the life of a fellow man they will be free from that responsibility which has prevailed in this country for so many years. I shall not take up the time of the House in explaining and enlarging

my views on this question, but as the hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said he was in favour of the resolution because he thought it was right, and because he thought that capital punishment was not a deterrent, I say I am in favour of capital punishment because I think it is right, and I think the figures conclusively prove that it is a deterrent.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: While I must disagree with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), I agree with these gentlemen on the main conclusion, that is, I do not think it is wise that we at this stage of the country's history should allow the infliction of capital punishment. My hon. friend (Mr. Bicker-dike) has dealt with one of the propositions with which I cannot agree, because I think it was given too wide an interpretation. I refer to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill. My hon friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has erred on the other side, for he wants to give too wide an interpretation to the Mosaic text: if man shed the blood of another, by man shall his blood be shed. If the hon. member who introduced this Bill has erred, certainly the hon. member for Kingston has also erred. It is quite true the law of Moses did allow capital punishment in certain cases. Will the non. member for Kingston undertake to say that we should allow capital punishment in every case where the law of Moses allowed it? Will any man in this House say that? No. And why not? They appreciate the fact, which they hide in their speeches, that the laws which suited the time of Moses are not suited to to-day. If I understood the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) correctly, he seemed to approve of the theory that every murderer is insane. I cannot agree with that, but I will try to show that although that theory is not based on fact, there is still something in it. Another thing that seems to trouble him. is that judges, prosecutors and hangmen, whom he seems to put all in the same class, must have a very uneasy conscience. I have never acted as a hangman or judge, but I have acted as prosecutor, and my conscience has never troubled me in the least, although I have prosecuted some men who have been put to death on account of their crimes. I do not think that argument has any bearing on the case at all. I do not think the conscience of any judge, or any prosecutor, troubles him either. I repeat that although I do not approve of all
m
the arguments the hon. member advanced, I want him to understand that I approve of the main conclusion: that we have advanced to a stage in this country's development where we can afford to do away with the death penalty. It is true that my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) seems to disagree with that. He seems to think that, at this particular stage of our history we should not think of such a thing. If the hon. member for Kingston had produced any statistics to show that we are having more murders at this present stage of our history than we have had in the past, there might be something in what he has said. But, I do not think he can do so. I have no authority before me, I have not prepared myself with any authorities at all, but I think he would be wrong in claiming that crime of this kind has increased. It is claimed on the one hand, by those who are advocating this Bill, that in countries where capital punishment has been abolished there is less crime of this description than there is in similar countries where capital punishment is still in force. The hon. member for Kingston quotes figures to show the opposite. They say that statistics cannot lie, but they can mislead very often and generally you can quote figures to prove the other side of almost any proposition. I have no doubt in the least that figures could be quoted to prove the opposite of the contention put forward by the hon. member for Kingston.
My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvel!), has said, and fairly said, that we are very apt to be influenced by our own personal observations and experience. I have had some experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and possibly, to some extent, I have been influenced by what I have seen. Although, I admit, I have never made any special study of this particular subject, I have tried to study the subject generally and to find out as much as I can, not only from my own experience, but from my reading. My reading in connection with criminal cases brings me pretty much to the same conclusion as that at which I have arrived as a result of my personal experience in watching cases with which I have had to do myself.
It is admitted, apparently, on all hands, that the infliction of the death penalty for this or any other crime is horrible and repulsive. I think we all agree to that. It is a horrible idea that the State shall gather its forces together and put one defenceless man to death. It is against the better *feelings of any right thinking man. I do

v not think there will be any question at all as to that. Agreeing then with what I have said, as I think we must agree, I go further and say that we must also agree to the proposition that capital punishment should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary. The question is: Is it absolutely necessary?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Levi Thomson: Perhaps that is too
strong a term to use; we will say ' reasonably necessary,' and that will perhaps please our friends opposite better. I think all will agree that unless it is necessary we should not think of any such thing. All will agree, I think, that the infliction of the death penalty by the State should not be permitted unless it is really necessary, and we will also agree that the system is horrible and repulsive to the minds of all right thinking persons. If that is admitted, then the onus rests entirely on those who would retain that system. It is for them to show that it is necessary in the interests of the State, and that it would be unsafe to do away with it. Some advocates of the Bill have stated that in none of the countries where capital punishment has been abolished has it been reinstated. I believe that my hon. friend from Kingston says that in some of the cantons of Switzerland it has been reinstated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Also in France.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: It was never abolished in France.


Levi Thomson: I will leave these gentlemen to settle that dispute themselves. I think it will be agreed that in almost all of the lands in which capital punishment has been abolished it has not been revived. If there had been a general complaint that crimes of this nature had increased where capital punishment had been abolished, there is no doubt that the people would, very soon have reinstated capital punishment. The fact that generally they have not reinstated that system shows clearly that they are better satisfied with the present method of dealing with these crimes than with the old system. Whatever fault their present system may have, they have not gone back to the former system, which shows that, in their opinion, the present system is the better one.
I just want to deal with one particular phase of this question, otherwise I would not have risen to my feet. I want to deal with the state of mind of the man who commits a crime of this kind. I said- that I could not entirely agree with my hon.

friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence, in assuming, as I believe he assumed, that these men were insane in every case. I do not think they are insane, that is that they would be adjudged by our courts to be legally insane. But I think that a study of the state of mind of the man who commits a crime of this kind is worthy of consideration, and I will admit, with my hon. friend from Carleton, that I am perhaps influenced a little by what I have seeif myself. Cases have come under my personal experience and my reading does not change my mind, but it rather bears out the conclusion that I have come to from those cases that have come under my personal observation. I find that there are two different states of mind, that you can divide the state of mind a person who commits a crime of that kind under two heads. Generally, each will have something to do with his condition, but either one or the other certainly will. Either the man who commits the crime is in an excited state of mind or there is some particular provocation or something which has done its work upon his passion with the result that he does not think for one moment of the consequences. That is the general thing. I have prosecuted in four cases where the parties have been found guilty

in three cases of murder and one of manslaughter, and in three out of those four cases I believe that was the absolute state of the minds of the persons who had committed those crimes. I am satisfied that not one of these three men had the slightest notion of the results to himself. It did not make one straw's worth of difference to these men whether the penalty was hanging, or life imprisonment, or a fine of one dollar. That is the general state of mind of the man who commits murder. You may call that insanity if you like; he is not in his right mind, but he is not insane. He is in that condition of mind where it does not make a bit of difference what the consequences of his act may be.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
man who premeditates murder?


Levi Thomson: The man to whom my hon. friend refers, and who has been referred to by one of the speakers before, is the man who from the bottom of his heart thinks there is no possible chance of his being found out. I do not think that any hon. member of this House will contradict me in that. Unless he is in the state I have just described in which he does not

think for a moment what the consequences will be, he is in the state of mind in which he has satisfied himself that he will not be found out.
Let us consider that for a moment. If he had not been in that state of mind, would he have committed the crime ? Take the case of the Italians, to which my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) referred. Perhaps the idea was in my hon. friend's mind that those men would not have committed the crime had they known that the penalty was hanging.
9 p.m. I have a great respect for my hon. friend's opinion, but I do not think he has given the matter very careful study. Had those Italians had any idea that they were going to be found out, would they have committed the crime for the paltry sum they obtained ? What good would the money be to them if they were imprisoned for life, Supposing that was the penalty ? It is quite possible that those Italians would rather be imprisoned for life than be hanged, whereas many other men would rather be hung than be imprisoned for life. My point is that they would not have committed the crime but for the fact that they were satisfied that they would never be found .out. I do not believe there is one case in ten thousand, in a civilized country, that will not come under one of these rules: Either that a man is in a state of mind where he has not the slightest thought as to the consequences that may result from his action, owing to his being worked up by passion or otherwise, or else he is thoroughly satisfied that he will never be found out.


Mr. WILCOX:: To what extent does the hon. member attribute the use of liquor to these crimes ?


Levi Thomson: That would probably come under the first head, because I notice that men who are drunk have no ideas of consequences to themselves. That is the result of my observations; I have never had any personal experience.
If I am right on those points, that the people who icommiti . these crimes come under one or the other of the heads to which I have referred, what difference does it make as a deterrent whether you punish them by imprisonment for life or by banging? We are told that it is a deterrent to others. I do not believe it. Will any man be deterred from committing a crime by the fact that he thinks he will be imprisoned for life and not hanged? If there are any such beings in existence,
there are so few of them that it is not worth "while considering such isolated cases. If hanging is to be used as a deterrent to others, the plan which has been condemned by those who oppose this Bill, that is the plan of public execution, should be revived. If we wish to deter the public from committing these crimes, we should give them an opportunity of seeing the execution, so thaJt they may know what it looks like to be hanged. No man who has seen anyone hanged will want to be hanged himself. While I am not so very strongly impressed by the ideas of the hon. members who have spoken in favour of the Bill, as they themselves are, I firmly believe that it will be better for humanity, better for the country and better all round if we do away with capital punishment.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I
am sure that every one will agree with me that the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Montreal, 8t. Lawrence ( Mr. Biok-erdike) is of sufficient importance to command more than a passing moment of the time of the House. I have listened with attention and earnestness to the arguments advanced both for and against, with a view of informing my mind on this very important matter. The hon. member for Montreal has stated that when the State condemns a man to death, it says by that action that that man is unfit to live on earth. He argues from that, that a man who is unfit to live on earth is certainly unfit for Heaven, and he, therefore, lays the responsibility on the state of prescribing and limiting most unhappily the future of that person.
The hon. members who have spoken in support of this Bill have taken the ground that the worst thing you can possibly do to a man is to take away his life. They argue, no doubt conscientiously and from humanitarian motives, that capital punishment should be abolished. I am not altogether convinced that the worst thing you can do to a man is to take away his life. I do not know whether it is worse for a man to suffer a few moments of anguish, to be followed by oblivion, or to be obliged to spend the rest of his days behind prison walls; to pound ceaselessly upon a piece of limestone, to be driven to his kennel at night, to be let out again in the morning a worse man that when he went in, to return to his kennel at night more like a beast than he was in the morning, to be forced to submit to all sorts of degradation, to mental torture, to torment and to bodily tortures


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member is rather dealing with a resolution which has not yet been reached.


Charles Avila Wilson: I am not discussing this resolution. I am simply stating that this, notice of motion was given, because of the Bill we are now discussing. I gave notice of this resolution because I desired information that would enable us better to discuss this Bill of my hon. friend in the light of facts concerning our own country. We are not here to legislate for Austria, Germany, France or even the British Empire. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if we had a return of all these cases from 1867-and that is why I agree with my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)-we should be in a better position to discuss this great and important question?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me draw the. hon.
gentleman's attention to the rule. If, the House had reached that order and he was prepared to make a motion, I assume it would be followed by just such an argument a3 he is now making and if that be correct he is anticipating an order on the paper.


Charles Avila Wilson: I withdraw all I have
said, and I shall not refer any more to order No. 62. There is no more obedient

servant of yours, Mr. Speaker, in the House than the hon. member for Laval, even though he is not allowed to read his notes. Fortunately for everybody to-night, I have no notes; I have not the privileges enjoyed by the Prime Minister. I am very sorry that on such an important subject I have no notes, because, as I was going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I expected that the Bill would be discussed later. The object I had in view was to have obtained a little more information. However, I have some information on the subject. The other day in Montreal a coloured man named Campbell was executed. I am delighted to see here now the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) who was the crown prosecutor in Montreal. There was a current report in the newspapers that this man Campbell had committed nine murders before the last one for which he paid the penalty of liis life. I ask hon. members of this House, especially my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence, what they would do with such a specimen of humanity, or such a-no, I will not use the other word, but any hon. gentleman in this House can supply it for me. Supposing this man had been sentenced to jail for life, would he be deprived of his mania for committing murder, and refrain from killing the guards? Reference has been made to the fact that in Edmonton, I think it was, one of the deputy wardens had his throat cut by a convict. If there is good reason for having erected a monument to the Chevalier d'Assas it seems to me that one should be erected to Dr. Laviolette of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, who, being wounded by convicts, gave the command:	' Shoot,
shoot, never mind me.' Dr. Laviolette did his duty, and did it well. I have had considerable experience during nineteen years of practice; I have defended fifteen cases of murder, and have prosecuted in two instances. If I were asked: 'Are you in favour of the abolition of capital punishment or are you against it?' I would admit very sincerely that when I was defending I was quite in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, but when I was prosecuting it took all the majesty of the law to keep me within bounds. Fortunately, this is not a political question; every member on this side and on the other side of the House is free to express his opinion. A professor came to me once and asked me:
' How do you stand with your conscience when you are defending a murderer who has confessed to you his guilt? How can

you defend such a ease?' I said I never took a bad case in my life and I do not know of any bad cases so far as criminality is concerned. This assertion may appear to be a very broad one, and perhaps hon. gentlemen will come to the conclusion that my conscience is a most elastic one. I cannot blame those of my friends who have a smile On their faces now, as there is reason for it, and if it is a consolation to them I am willing that they should have that consolation. If I am sick, I go to a doctor; if I have some sins to confess, I go to the priest; if any hon. gentlemen have trouble about law, I would advise them to go to a lawyer-he is not the worst adviser after all. There is one thing we must not forget. After all, what is a verdict? It is a conclusion which the judge and jury have got to draw from the facts and from the law, and that is the reason why jurisprudence, so far as criminal law is concerned, is so particular about the admissions and confessions of criminals. I have seen some men und.er the strain of the 'charge that was1 laid against them make an admission of guilt when they were not guilty at all. Should we apply to those men the principle that punishment is a deterrent of their actions? The actions of the criminal may have been brought about by passion, by drugs, by liquor, by jealousy, by temper. The hon. member for St. Lawrence said that society would be more adequately protected against criminals by imprisonment for life. I know that imprisonment for life is a severe punishment. Are we going to leave to the murderers themselves the choice as to whether they prefer to hang or to be imprisoned for life? I think we have to take a saner view than this. I heard the hon. member for South Renfrew say that when he was a minister of the Cabinet he found it one of the most trying things to decide a question of life or death. I cannot blame him for that. I have said that during the course of my practice I have defended fifteen cases of murder. A remark of the hon. member for Frontenao to which I take exception was his assertion that some men were safe because they had wealthy or political friends. On one occasion I addressed a petition to His Excellency, the Governor General in Council, but I was not successful. However, there is one thing which must be considered. How can a Cabinet composed of fourteen or fifteen members, receiving a report from a judge and reading dry depositions written in cold red or black ink on white paper, appreciate the evidence of a witness when they do not see the witness? This is what

I Rave always been afraid of. How can an executive Cabinet manipulate-if I may use the word; I know it is improper, but no better word comes to my mind just now-or appreciate or thresh out the evidence in connection with any particular case when it is a case of life or death? How can they weigh the evidence of witness A or witness B or witness C and say that they believe this witness and disbelieve the other, when they have not the witness before them? But the Government has to take the responsibility, because the law is theirs. Is this justice? If I were proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code I would suggest that where a verdict of guilty is found the jury pronounce the verdict of guilty of murder, with or without capital punishment. Let society take the whole responsibility. Let these twelve men good and true-twelve such men as superintended the signing of the Magna Charts at Runnymede-take the responsibility oi their own actions. Do not put the responsibility on fourteen or fifteen men in Ottawa, and compel them to study the dry record of a criminal case; then it will be known whether the evidence of witness A or witness B or witness C is or is not worthy of being believed. I know this is a disagreeable subject to discuss, but we are here to do our duty, and I think I am performing mine to the best of my ability.
I have the statistics at hand and I could discuss some particular cases one after the other and be in a better position to support my contention. The question is not a new one. I know how many times it has been raised in this House, but I am sure of one thing; the matter has not been brought up in Parliament since 1908, when I first came into this House. It has been taken up and studied in England. I have here the report of all Bills in this matter presented in the House of Commons from 1853 to 1881; it is entitled ' Reports of Capital Punishment from 1853 to 1881.' A commission has been appointed, and many learned men have been called upon to give evidence. I shall not take up the time of the House to read six or seven hundred pages of evidence; I will dispense with that-I am sure hon. gentlemen will give me that privilege. I am sure that even if I were to read this I would not be capable of convincing some hon. gentlemen in this House who have already formed opinions on the subject. As I have said, I will vote against the Bill presented by the hon.
member for St. Lawrence division. When considering this subject sometimes I have been in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, and sometimes I have favoured the other side of the question, but after considering it thoroughly; after studying the statistics not only of the different countries where capital punishment has been in force and is still in existence, but also of those wherein capital punishment has been abolished, I came to the conclusion that there are just as many crimes, having regard to murder, in countries where capital punishment has been abolished as there are in countries where it is still in existence. I am told that capital punishment has been abolished in Italy and Austria, but one day I was told by an Italian:	' I am in favour of the
abolition of capital punishment for one reason.' His reason convinced me:	'If
you kill my brother, you still live; I will kill you, and I will live also.'


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott):: I am strongly inclined to support the Bill presented by my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that there is not much agitation in this country to suppress capital punishment, and that is true in respect to recent years that which is probably due to the mitigation of the laws in regard to punishment. It is not many years since capital punishment was imposed in England for numerous offences, while to-day, it is restricted to cases of treason and murder. It is also imposed under martial law for certain offences in the army and navy. In this country, it is now restricted to treason, murder, and cases of rape. In cases of rape the death penalty is very seldom imposed, and it is not obligatory on the judge to impose capital punishment, but optional. I once defended a person charged with this offence, and the judge came very near to imposing sentence of death. I must admit it was a very bad case and the prisoner got a life sentence. It was probably a just sentence considering the class from which the criminal came, but I think it would have been going to the extreme to impose the death penalty. Some English writers and associations advocate the total abolition of the death penalty, their argument being that society has no right to take the life of any	one	of	its	members	for	anycause. For	my	part, I find it	hard toadmit that	society	has	any right	to	takethe life of	one	of its	members	on	any
ground. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has cited the Bible and the Mosaic law, but I prefer the more humane law laid down in the New Testament, the law of forgiveness. I think the tendency of humanity to-day is towards forgiveness rattier than towards revenge. We may object to capital punishment on many grounds. First on religious grounds, because it may deprive the sinner of the full time for repentance. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said that a man who was hanged was just as well prepared to meet his Saviour as a man who was left to rot, mentally and morally, in prison. It is true that the courts of justice give more time now between the trial and the day of execution than formerly; it is not many years since the accused in England was executed on the same day he was found guilty. Even now, the time is comparatively short, and if a person is allowed to live to the end of his natural life, he would have more time for full repentance and full reparation.


Charles Avila Wilson: Or to get worse.


Edmond Proulx: Some may get worse, but as a general rule I think the prisoners would be better prepared at the end of their natural life to meet their Saviour. Again, we may take objection to capital punishment on medical grounds, on the ground of mental irresponsibility. I do not think it can be denied that there are many cases of homicide committed through irresponsibility, through a person losing control of his senses. I have not had a very large experience in criminology, but I defended two persons charged with murder. The first year I was at the Bar, I had charge of the defence of a man who had committed a double murder; I never had any doubt that this man was not morally guilty, although he was legally guilty. I put up a special plea of insanity, but as members of the Bar in this House know, legal insanity is very hard to prove. Not every kind of insanity will be admitted in a court of justice. This man, as soon as he had recovered his senses was really repentant. In fact he wanted to plead guilty, and it was against his will that I entered a plea of not guilty. Two medical experts were called, Dr. Clarke, now of the Toronto Asylum, and then Superintendent of the Roekwood Asylum and Dr. Beemer of the Mimico Asylum. They examined the accused a few months after the offence was committed: 'he had recovered his full senses at that time. They could not find him in-
sane according to the definition in the Code. I certainly thought it was a ease of cerebral insanity. I think there are quite a few medical men who believe in this species of insanity. Dr. Clarke himself had given a lecture some months before at Peterborough before the Medical Association on this very subject, but he would not admit that my client came within the definition. His insanity was brought on by heavy drinking, and I always feel that in cases of that kind the man is not morally guilty. Another ground on which we can object to capital punishment is that it is not really a deterrent. It is inflicted in so few instances that criminals discount the risks of undergoing it. As my hon. friend from Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Thomson) said a few moments ago, those who commit murder, do so because they feel practically sure they will not be detected and punished. There are very few cases in which the person who commits the crime thinks or even dreams that he may undergo sentence of death. If we take the legal ground that the sentence being irrevocable and the evidence often circumstantial only, there is a great risk of gross injustice in executing the person convicted of murder. There are many cases in which there is only circumstantial evidence. My legal friends may say that in many cases circumstantial evidence may be stronger than direct evidence. That may be true, but as when an innocent man is hanged the damage is irreparable, we should be very cautious before executing any man convicted of murder.
Even when the evidence is direct, persons may perjure themselves or may be mistaken and although it has seldom been proven that innocent persons have been hanged, it still is a fact that in almost every country there has been a strong conviction amongst the people that some persons who have been hanged might have been innocent. Only the other day we discussed the case of a poor Italian sent up for fifteen years' imprisonment for attempted murder. He has passed five years of his life in prison. I will not say that he was actually innocent but still there was a strong presumption that he was by the fact of some of the persons giving evidence against him being of the criminal class. And lastly I am opposed to capital punishment on moral grounds because capital punishment does not fit the case or effect the reformation of the offender. We cannot repair the loss of a life by the loss of another one and it certainly does not effect the reformation of the offender, be-

cause in many cases, when the offender has done the act under strong impulse or under the influence of liquor, he did not intend to commit the act and if he had a chance to reform he could become again a good member of society. The tendency in England has been to restrict the imposition of capital punishment. In 1908 an Act was passed, called the Children Act, which expressly forbids the pronouncement or recording of the sentence of death against any person under the age of sixteen years. We have not this law yet in 'this country.
I think that this is a good position because most of the murders committed by children are not deliberately committed and they should not be subject to capital punishment. Capital punishment is probably retained partly from ingrained habit and partly from a sense of its appropriateness for certain crimes; also that the ultimate ratio may be available in cases of sufficient gravity to the common weal. In cases of high treason, in the United Kingdom or other countries, of the murder of a king or of any member of the imperial family, capital punishment might be retained. But I think that it should be restricted only to this class of crime. It may perhaps be retained on account of the medical doctrine and that of Lombroso in respect to criminal atavism and irresponsibility. That probably tended to incline the public mind in favour of capital punishment. Sir James Stephen, another eminent jurist, has even thereby been tempted to advocate the execution of habitual criminals. It certainly seems strange that the community should feel impelled to preserve a class ol dangerous lunatics and give them the finest air in the country and the right to kill two jailers a week, as seems to be the fear of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) when he said that if a criminal was committed to pass his life in prison he might preserve his criminal instincts and might exercise them on his guards. I think that such instances' would be rather the exception than the rule. I think the general rule would be that those confined in the jail will try to earn their pardon by good conduct.
The whole question of capital punishment was investigated in the United Kingdom in 1864. It was considered by a Royal Commission appointed in that year, which reported in 1866. The commission took the opinion of all the judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and of many other eminent persons, and collected the laws of other countries so far
as this was ascertainable. The commissioners differed on the question of the expediency of thfe abolition or retaining of capital punishment and did not report thereon, but they recommended that it should be restricted in the United Kingdom to high treason and murder. Secondly, they reported in favour of an alteration of the law of homicide so as to classify homicides according to their gravity and to confine capital punishment to murder in the first degree. We have not in this country a classification. In the United States they have homicide in the first degree and in the second degree. Here we have homicide, which is divided into two kinds, murder and manslaughter.
1 speak now of capital or punishable homicide, because, of course, there might also be justifiable homicide. But in some cases where the jury might be justified in reducing murder to manslaughter, they may be directed by the judge to bring in a verdict of murder or of nothing, according to the evidence presented to the court. I remember in one case I was engaged for the defence. The accused was charged with murdering his brother and I wanted the offence to be reduced to manslaughter. I could not prove that there was provocation by blows, by physical force, but I considered I had probably proven sufficient provocation by words and also by showing the precedent conduct of the person killed toward the accused, because the person killed was the elder brother of the accused and was acting in a kind of parental relationship to him. I thought that the jury would have been justified in bringing in a verdict of manslaughter instead of one of murder. The learned judge, in giving the definition of the offence and appreciating the evidence, led the minds of the jury to the offence of murder. The jury brought in a verdict of murder with a strong recommendation to mercy, and I afterwards learned from some of the jury that they thought that by bringing in this recommendation they would save the man from the scaffold. The learned judge told me afterwards that he would have preferred that the verdict had been for manslaughter. His report to the Minister of Justice led to the commutation of the sentence but, unfortunately, the man executed the sentence upon himself which the jury had rendered. After the sentence had been commuted he told me he preferred to die. I doubted his declaration at the time, but after he had been five or six months in the penitentiary he hanged

himself with his bed sheets. He may have been one of those of whom the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) spoke when he said that most of those condemned to the death penalty would probably prefer to be banged than to pass their life in the penitentiary. But, I think those are very few in number. Most of those found guilty, if they were given the option between life imprisonment and the scaffold, would choose life imprisonment. I do not propose to take up any more time. The ground has been very well covered by my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence, who proposed this Bill, and if the Bill goes to a vote I will support it.
^ Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE:	Mr. Speaker, I want to state why I am in favour of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), proposing the abolition of the death penalty. I claim that, with the present organization of society, capital punishment should be abolished. Whenever a murder is committed in any part of the country we follow the trial in the newspapers and I have noticed for a good many years past that if it happens that the person accused of the crime has very rich relatives, or a great many friends who possess a certain amount of money, he stands a very good chance of receiving a life sentence instead of being hanged. I will cite one case that comes to my mind. It is the Valley-field affair that occurred some years ago, when, I believe, three men were killed. I do not know that as yet the murderer of those three men has been hanged. If the accused happens to be a poor man with hardly any person to defend him he stands a good chance of getting the full capital punishment. I believe that society itself is largely responsible for a good many of the murders that are committed in the country. I claim further that capital punishment will create more murderers and rogues. I will explain myself. A family supporting the brand of dishonour imposed upon it by the infliction of the death penalty upon its head, or one of its members, cannot be expected to have a very warm spot in its heart for the society that took the life of father or brother under those conditions. The family will entertain a feeling of bitter animosity against the society that has inflicted such a punishment upon its head. This feeling of animosity is likely to be extended through two or three generations, you may have two or three criminals in succeeding generations, and if

you go back and trace it to its source you will find that this condition originated with the infliction of capital punishment upon a member of the family. It has been stated that there are more murders amongst those who have come from the old land and are now citizens of this country than amongst other classes of the community. Bear in mind that the social conditions in the countries from which these people have come are also responsible for the mentality of the people. We must bear in mind that the mentality of men is developed with the sphere in which they are found. I am strongly in favour of abolishing capital punishment and of doing all in our power to educate men to become better citizens instead of inviting their ill-will towards society which the infliction of this barbarous punishment must produce in the minds and hearts of the family and 10 p.m. descendants of the victims.
There a great many other ways of committing murder than those which are commonly regarded as constituting the crime dealt with in this Bill, and which are not generally regarded as calling for the infliction of capital punishment, but probably this is not the time to discuss that subject in its wider aspect. There are people in this country more responsible for the life of men and women than the person who will take a revolver and kill his fellow-man. We are doing very little towards educating that class of people. I repeat that I am against capital punishment because I believe that society is absolutely responsible for the action of those who commit acts of this kind which the law is designed to prevent.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to disagree with so many of my friends on this side of the House on this question. It is a very important question, and because I believe it to be so important I wish to express my opinion in regard to it. I desire, if I may, to speak for those who believe that capital punishment is a necessity of society as at present constituted. Speaking not only for myself but for those who think as I do, I would say that we have just the same belief in the existence of God, in the eternity of the soul and in the mercy of the Saviour as have those who speak against capital punishment. Let me ask the House to look, as my turn of mind causes me to look, not to the murderer but to the victim. My sympathy is with the

families of tliose who have been the victims of the murderer. It is as a rule the better people who are the victims. It is ,ihe worse who are the murderers. We are dealing with facts as they are, as men in a world of men, as a responsible body charged with the protection of society by means of law and the administration of law. If we believe that the infliction of capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder or capital crime, then certainly it is repulsive that capital punishment should be inflicted. I am one of those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent; that history and facts prove that it is a deterrent; and so long as man's mind is as it is, so long will it be a deterrent.
It has seemed good to the Creator to implant, as a master instinct in the mind of man, the fear of death. If that is the master instinct, and it is, and of necessity it is, then certainly capital punishment is a deterrent against capital crime and as such is a necessity to present day civilization. At some future date in the history of the world, when swords have been beaten into plough-shares and spears into pruning hooks, when the mind of man has been changed, when the uplift that we are all working for has been obtained, then we can afford to do away with that protection which, as I understand the ease, the safety of society imperatively demands today.
For the man who occupies a position in life where his safety is assured, not by the law of the land but by the social conditions, who sees crime merely as through a telescope and the consequences of crime as something apart and away from himself, it is easy to discuss the punishment of crime academically. I have had the good or bad fortune to live 'the larger part of my life under conditions where the primal passions of man were not under the restraint of society as they are in the centres of civilization, and yet where law and order were* as well maintained, during the period of my lifetime there, as they are here or anywhere else; but it was because justice was swift and certain and adequate .that law and order were maintained and that life and property were safe.
To begin at the further west: The difference in the conditions of law and order prevailing immediately south and immediately north of the 49th parallel in the mining regions of the Pacific coast of the United States and of British Columbia respectively, I think will establish beyond any question
the value of the swift, certain and adequate administration of law. There was no difference in natural conditions between the mining fields of California and the mining fields of British Columbia. In both cases it was the same metal that the people were searching for; in both cases it was the same men who were searching for the metal; but in one case was a saturnalia of murder and in the other case there was almost an absolute absence of serious crime.
It is history and not ancient history-my friends from the Pacific coast will perhaps know more about it than I do-that when Judge Begbie was appointed to administer law in the mining regions of British Columbia, he was given to understand that this was a mining country, and that because it was a mining country there had to be a certain latitude in the actions of men, and that their primal passions must have their way. He said: 'I represent British authority and British law; and if there is shooting, there will be hanging.' There was some shooting; there was hanging and there was no more shooting. There did not need to be any more hanging, and the province of British Columbia in those early days stood as an example for the maintenance of law and order, a credit to the empire and to the people of that province.
Let us now cross the mountains on to the great plains. Nobody will deny that in the two prairie provinces where law and order were maintained by the mounted police, there was a maintenance of favourable conditions in the security of life and property such as was better than1 prevails in the city of Ottawa to-day. There is no natural difference between the province of Alberta and the state of Montana; there is only an imaginary line between the two, yet I have heard passengers on the railway crossing the boundary line saying that, while the train was on the boundary line, they saw men shooting each other on the south side of the line, whereas north of the line such a thing was unknown. I say again, it was because on the Canadian side law was swift, measurably swift, certain, measurably certain adequate, measurably adequate, whereas on the other side of the line it was neither swift, certain nor adequate.
I was a resident of Manitoba in 1873. The population then was small and the country was isolated from the rest of the DQminion. In what are now the states of Minnesota and Dakota railroad work was going on, and there was a very great disregard of law and order and of the rights of life and property in those states. I remember very distinctly



one summer morning that word was scattered through the then little town of Winnipeg that a murder had been committed the night before. It was true. I saw the body myself, stabbed in forty or fifty places. It was thought to be the opening of an era of sueh conditions as prevailed south of the line. The head of the judiciary of Manitoba of that day was Chief Justice Wood. Certain arrests were made, a trial was held and a man was hanged. And from that time on there was nothing but the maintenance of law and order. I am bound to say that the people of that locality at that time fully believed that the prompt and adequate administration of justice on that occasion did deter an incursion of undesirable characters from south of the line who would have made of Winnipeg what the towns along the Northern Pacific had been made under their control. Having seen what I have seen, believing what I believe, I am for the protection of the settler on the prairie and the safety, security and honour of his wife and family. You cannot put policemen all over the country; you cannot give protection by main force; but you can give protection, I say, by making the administration of the law swift, certain and adequate. As one having had long experience in that country, having more interest in it than in any other part of the country, I want to say to this House that, in the name of that country, I ask that no legislation be passed by this House that shall render the administration of justice less swift, less certain or less adequate. And what is true there is just as true here, although it is not brought so closely home because of the larger mass of population.
Now, as to the point whether the death penalty is a deterrent, it must be remembered it is not the man of high intellectuality, in the large majority of cases that it is necessary to affect, it is the man of low intellectuality, the man whose mind is necessarily affected by the practical result of the act that he may take. The idea must be impressed upon him through a long period, he must be given clearly to understand that killing means hanging, and then he will not take the chances. As to the comparative terror of death and imprisonment, why are all these petitions for clemency sent in when a man is sentenced to death if the death penalty is not more terrible than life imprisonment? If the death penalty is less terrible than imprisonment as my hon. friend from 
Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) suggests, it is within the power, within the reach, of the prisoner to end his imprisonment by accepting death. But does he do it ? It is not. reasonable to argue that any idea can affect the mind of man as strongly as the idea of the preservation of his life. If there is no merit in the enforcement of the extreme penalty when circumstances demand it, I ask my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickedike), how it came that Canada which, from 1837 to 1857 did not enforce the death penalty, then determined to enforce that penalty, and has enforced it ever since ? I do not personally remember the conditions before 1857. But information that I gathered from my elders and from the people with whom I associated when I was a young boy-and that is a long time ago now- leads me to believe that the conditions as to the maintenance of law and order, the security of life and property, in the 40's and 50's, in Canada, w'ere not equal to what they are to-day, nor even measurably equal. It has been said that in France the law against capital punishment was never taken off the statute books. That I believe to be true. But the experiment of abolishing capital punishment in effect was tried, was continued for a number of years, and was abandoned within the past year for what seemed to be good reasons to the President of the Republic, and, as far as I have been able to learn, with the full approval of the majority of its citizens.
I have every respect for the opinions of those who hold contrary views to my own;
I give them credit for wishing to do something in the cause of humanity. But I claim for myself, holding the contrary view, the same right to consideration in holding that view and claiming absolutely that I hold it in the interests of humanity.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I may venture, in opening, to say a word of congratulation to the distinguished member for St. Lawrence Division (Mr. Bickerdike), my good friend and my colleague in the representation of the city of Montreal, on the manner in which he has brought to the attention of this House the very important question which is raised by the Bill which he has introduced. He has put before us a view that, I feel, found its source in the impulse of his kindly heart, and has supported that view by	an	argument strong in
reasoning,	and backed by authorities
the search for which reveals careful study of this question on his part

I think, too, that he is to be congratulated upon the debate that the measure he has so introduced has provoked. We have had views, differing views, views favourable to the measure introduced and views opposed to it, both of them, I think, strongly entertained, amounting to something more than views, to strong convictions; and we have had them put before this House by the different members who have spoken in language that was calm. In the course of their observations they have, I am sure, contributed a great deal in addition to the knowledge that some of us may have possessed in connection with this question at the outset of this debate. I feel quite justified, and I am sure that the House will endorse me in my congratulations to the member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) for the manner in which he has introduced this measure and the way in which he has pleaded for the conviction which he so earnestly entertains. I am perfectly free to admit at the outset that the views that I entertained at the opening of this debate have not been changed by anything I have heard in the course of it. Although I regret to differ with the distinguished gentleman who introduced the Bill, I have no hesitation in pronouncing my opinion as adverse to the measure which this House is asked to adopt. The observations which I think it may be proper for me to make in support of the view which I so entertain I trust will not be very lengthy, but they may afford me an opportunity of laying before this House some of that information which several members who have spoken have regretted that this House had not been put in possession of to enable them to discuss as fully and adequately as they would desire this important question. There are also, I think, in the House some hon. gentlemen who desire to speak on one side or the other of this question and to whom the House would listen with pleasure and with profit. It is therefore not to be anticipated that we should close this debate at a very early hour this evening, and I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Friday, February 6, 1914.