My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said at the beginning of his speech that we would have more details of the subject matter of the resolution later on; and while my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in stating that we had had a few years' experience of this system and found that it did not work too well in some respects, rather implied that there might be some amendments made to the Civil Service Act; and taking into consideration also the fact that there was a ministerial caucus this morning, I infer that the matter must have been discussed there, and some promises must have been made by the ministers to their supporters that amendments would be made to the Civil Service Act this session. So I presume this resolution is going to be withdrawn.
In case it is not withdrawn, I wish to say that I do not intend to support the resolution. I believe that when Parliament some years ago applied the Civil Service Act to the Inside Service it was good legislation, and I believe the Act has worked very well in that respect. Mistakes may have been made, but ministers and deputy ministers also make mistakes. The Civil Service Commission, I believe, is trying to apply the Act to the best advantage. With regard to the Outside Service, I am of the opinion of my hon. friends, the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lem-ieux), that for positions such as postmasterships in the large cities and towns the Civil Service Commission is the best body to hold competitive examinations and make the proper appointments; in other words, I believe that those positions should be filled on merit rather than as the result of political influence. With regard to the appointment of postmasters and other local officials in rural districts I have no fault to find with the previous practice. When my friends were in power I exercised the patronage in my constituency, I never shirked the responsibility, and I do not think I ever recommended a wrong appointment; anyway, my people never reproached me. I did not always please those who applied for appointment, I had to make a choice from among those I considered best fitted to fill the vacancy, just as the Civil Service Commission have to do now. I think the same applies in all other constituencies. Members of Parliament have a certain standing in their constituencies, and I think they can be trusted to make proper recommendations. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was very generous to-night, more generous than I have known him in the past, he being ready, he said, to concede to us the privilege of making recommendations. Well, I am not going to ask that privilege from this Government; but if they apply to me I will exercise the responsibility of re-
commending fit and proper persons for any appointments in my constituency.
When I was asked by the Dominion Statistician last fall to make recommendations with regard to the district for the taking of the census, I was not like my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low), I did not expect the Government would be so generous as to ask me to recommend any persons as census commissioners or enumerators, so I never volunteered any recommendations. I may say that from applications I have received I must assume that my electors, like the electors of my hon. friend from South Renfrew and of other hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-day, have been deceived into imagining that patronage had been abolished and that those census appointments were open to all electors, irrespective of party affiliations. I may say that I received quite a few applications, which I forwarded to the Dominion Statistician. I expected that he would transmit them to the County Commissioner, and I know that if the applicants were appointed, they would be able to do the work properly. But I am not too sure that they will be appointed; I can see by what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said this aftern'oon that the appointments for the taking of the census are going to be political appointments. It would seem that this is about the only consolation left to Government supporters. They are not going to stay in power very long, and it must be a consolation to them to get a few of their friends appointed in connection with the taking of the census. I do not begrudge them the consolation; I think they are justly entitled to it. If they can make a few friends out of it and thereby save themselves from defeat at the next election, they are welcome to it, but I do not think that they will make enough friends to enable them to bring about that result.
I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker. I do not approve of the resolution as drafted because it includes both the Inside and the Outside Service, and I want the Inside Service to remain under the Civil Service Commission. I think it would be a retrograde step to take the Inside Service away from the Civil Service Commission. If the resolution was amended in such a way as to leave the Inside Service with the Civil Service Commission, as well as all appointments to positions in the different cities-in post offices and customs offices- giving only the local appointments to mem-
bers or to defeated candidates, then I would be disposed to support the resolution. As I say, I am not disposed to support it as at present drafted.
Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the resolution before the House has disclosed some misunderstanding of the situation. Apparently my hon. friends on both sides of the House have during the last two or three years taken seriously the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and his confreres in the Cabinet when they were talking of the abolition of patronage. Those who have known the right hon. gentleman as long as I have must realize, however, his ability to make a most eloquent speech, to talk idealism, to pour forth platitudes- but when it comes down to doing things he is still imbued with the old doctrine of the dyed-in-the-wool Tory: "To the victors belong the spoils." In common with his confreres, he says: We are living under conditions of patronage just as we have done all the years that have passed.
Now, I am not deceived, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this matter. I had no confidence in the statement of the Government that patronage would be abolished; therefore I am not disappointed. When my friend, Mr. Coates, wrote to me, as he did to other members of Parliament, asking for information with regard to the areas that were being established in my constituency, for the purpose of collecting Census statistics I replied furnishing him with the information, but I did not, as other hon. members did, waste a moment of time in offering any suggestions or making any recommendations with regard to the appointment of census enumerators or any person else who might be employed in connection with the taking of the census in my constituency. I knew that such suggestions or recommendations would not be acted upon; they had never done so in the past. In spite of the protestations made by hon. gentlemen opposite, they had no idea that any such recommendations would be received or acted upon, they are not deceiving me or deceiving the country in regard to the matter.
As to the suggestion that political patronage in Canada has been abolished, why, Mr. Speaker, it is more rampant now than it ever was. Our friends opposite are using the Civil Service Commission, appointed by themselves to find jobs for some of their own political friends, and they are using that Commission as a buffer between themselves
and the people. That is all the Civil Service Commission was ever intended to be; that is all it has ever been used for. It is merely talking nonsense for hon. gentlemen to speak at length about political patronage being abolished; the people of this country know better. They know it, Sir, because they have had the experience and are having the experience every day and every hour. Down in my constituency I have adopted a new arrangement in regard to patronage. By some means or other, my friends opposite have caused unsuspecting people in some localities to believe that patronage has been abolished. They come to me and write to me asking that I recommend them for some positions in the service of the country. Well, Sir, for some time they continued coming to me, and I would tell them: If you want this job
do not take a recommendation from me; that would absolutely put you out of business. So I have adopted another course. When a man comes to me who I do not wish to get a job I recommend him and he is sure of being turned down by the powers that be; the more and stronger reasons I have for keeping that man from getting a job, the stronger I make my recommendation, and the more certain I am that he will not get the job. If I had a friend whom I would like to get a job and there is practically no possibility of his getting it, I write a letter to some of my friends who will go to the powers that be and tell them that this man should not have the job because he is rather inclined to be tory- and sometimes he gets a job in that way. In fact, that is the only way that I can work patronage in my own constituency under the present Government.
I am inclined to accept the statement of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) who has told us frequently in this House- and he told us emphatically this afternoon -that policical patronage has not been abolished; that it was being handed over to a few_ individuals who make the appointments to the public service. My hon. friend is either right or wrong. If he is wrong, he is intentionally taking the stand that he does, for he knows. He has been a member of parliament for some years; he lives in Ottawa, where he is in touch with thousands of Civil Service employees; he knows the situation. If his statement is true, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that the Government should stand up and talk about political patronage being abolished and thus try to decive the people. It is a quarrel between my hon. friends of the Government and the
hon. member from Ottawa, their loyal supporter; one is right and the other is wrong. With the little knowledge that I have I am rather inclined to believe that my hon. friend from Ottawa is right and that my hon. friends of the Government are still trying to deceive the people in regard to this patronage question.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce would make his solemn protestations, his eloquent appeals that we 'should drop party politics, hon. gentlemen on this side would say to me: "Why, how he is mellowing with years." They did not understand the hon. gentleman. They did not understand him then, and they do not understand him now. He can make eloquent pleadings in regard to the situation, but that is what he did as long ago as I can remember him in the province of New Brunswick; what he has done during all his public life he is doing now. Why, Sir, he admitted to-day that we are going back to old line party politics in the selection of 24,000 census enumerators. He is going to follow along the same old lines in which he was brought up and in which, I am sure, he will pass to the other side, notwithstanding the pleasant speeches which he makes in regard to the matter- speeches which do not mean anything to the people of this country.
member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) left, he asked me to state that he wished this motion withdrawn, his object having been accomplished by the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. I therefore, wish to move that the motion be withdrawn. I understand that he has made the same statement to Your Honour.
a word to say; I do not want to delay the House. It appears to me that one point which should have been submitted to the Government has not been submitted. I
have in my hand a list of the census commissioners for the province of Quebec. As we all know there are in Quebec 65 constituencies, and in some constituencies, there is more than one commissioner, so that there are about seventy commissioners for the census of 1921 in that province. It has been argued that patronage does not exist any more, and that, therefore, these gentlemen who have been nominated as commissioners in Quebec should have been chosen from the people of both parties. If we take the last Federal election as representing the opinion of Quebec in regard to the Liberal or the Conservative party, we should come to the conclusion that the Liberal party is in the majority in that province. Therefore, if these nominations had been made on a non-partisan basis, the majority of the nominees should be Liberals. Are they Liberals or Conservatives? I have my opinion about that, but I shall not pronounce upon the subject. I should like hon. gentlemen on the other side to give the answer, and I am on the floor for that purpose of extending an invitation to them to do so. Out of about 70 nominees, are there 35 Liberals? Are ten of them Liberals? Are five of them Liberals? Are two of them Liberals? Is there one Liberal out of the 70 nominees? I should like to know.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):
As regards those
appointments to which the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Dennis) has referred, it is not at all possible that one single Liberal has been appointed. The possibility would be rather the other way. The incredible thing would have happened if the Government had appointed a Liberal where there was a possibility of doing anything else. In the last election of 1917, we were told that appointments would be at least fifty-fifty as the Government was supposed to be fifty-fifty. In my constituency of North Cape Breton and Victoria, there were about 60 or 65 officials, great or small, in connection with the election, and out of
those 60 or 65 there were two Libei'als. That possibly is the conception of hon. gentlemen opposite of fifty-fifty. They have such a lofty appreciation of their own crowd, that possibly that is the proportion in which they would regard them, although the value and merit would go the other way. The two that I got out of the 65 were got by mere accident. At a place called Big Baddeck, a gentleman by the name of John Cylie was appointed. A gentleman of splendid Irish extraction, who would not act for the Government in the election, and at the eleventh hour they had to take a Scotchman by the name of Mclnnis. In the other case, they appointed a man who had no learning at all, who could not write his name, but at the eleventh hour he took cold feet and thought he would not be equal to the occasion, and in that emergency they had to appoint his neighbour who was the nearest man who would do the job, as there was no time to look around for anybody else. Therefore, out of 65 where the proportion was to be fifty-fifty, there were only two Liberals and those two appointments were made by the law of necessity and accident, so that nobody is going to surprise me in any way by telling me that this Government, although promising to do these wonderful things and to abolish patronage, has thrown all that to the winds and followed the old-time custom.
In the present series of appointments I see that the same custom is being exactly followed. I do not profess to be able to tell who all the commissioners in Nova Scotia are, but I know the names and personnel of the men in my immediate neighbourhood. Good fellows they are in every way, but they are, of course, of the stripe which they were expected to be under the circumstances. With that, I find no fault, but I find fault with this. For the last four or five years, and particularly for the last three years, we have been promised that all appointments of this class should go to returned soldiers; that returned soldiers were to be appointed to every office for which such men could be found. I know the men who have been appointed in the counties of Victoria, Cape Breton and Richmond, but not one of them is a returned soldier, and I am sure the place is full of men who are returned soldiers just as capable of filling those offices as the men who were appointed. Why were those returned soldiers not appointed? Why did the Government not keep its word in that connection? Here is an army of 24,000
men who will be appointed throughout this country, and what guarantee have we that when the matter gets out of the hands of the Government, any better appointments, as far as returned soldiers are concerned, will be made than the Government have made themselves?
I believe it is true that when a commissioner is appointed in any particular area, he has the selection of his men. He has been appointed on Tory lines for Tory service, not at all because he has given any service to his country overseas. When he comes to make his selections, he will have to pick out and put in office men who are Tory heelers in the different wards, and the returned soldier will not "have even a look-in," as the slang phrase goes. I, therefore, protest against what I may call deception, or perhaps, worse-treachery in making promises to returned men that they should receive offices of this kind and then, when the opportunity has arisen, where 24,000 men are to be appointed, returned men-and there are plenty of them in the country to do the work-are entirely ignored.
It is said that the average pay of those enumerators will be about $100, although, perhaps, some of them will receive more than that and some less. If. you put the average at $100 for each of the 24,000, youg have something like $2,400,000 to be expended merely in connection with the enumeration or filling out the schedules. That would be quite an item amongst returned men who are to-day unemployed in this country; but we have no assurance, no guarantee whatever, that from the Atlantic to the Pacific a single returned man will be employed. It should have been made a 'condition precedent that returned men should get these positions. That is one of the things that should have been stipulated before the making of those appointments was handed over to the census commissioners. I know the men who were appointed in the part of the country from which I come are well-to-do men who do not need those jobs. They are not poor. They are well-to-do merchants, farmers, or contractors. They have lots of money, and are able to get along without a job of this kind, while on the other hand there are lots of clever fellows who have lost a leg, or a hand, or an eye, at the war, to whom such a job would be a God send, but they are brushed aside as no goods, and the positions are given to men who from a financial standpoint do not need them at all. I think it is only proper, in case the matter
may yet be remedied and these jobs be given to returned men, that I should bring this matter to the notice of the Government, and I do so in all sincerity so far as the returned soldiers are concerned, but I am afraid there will not be much sincerity in any answer I may receive. .
As to the merits of this motion, the situation in the Civil Service is an old story to those of us who have been here for many years. I remember the former Prime Minister making a statement when leader of the Opposition that the trouble with the Civil Service was that it was overmanned and underpaid. That was the statement made by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). But did things get better after the right hon. gentleman got charge of things in this country? What happened? For the first three years after the Government came into power, between 1911 and 1914, when the war broke out, 11,000 men, roughly speaking, were dismissed, turned out on the road to make room for others, and 25,000 were put in their places, just for the sake of patronage. That is what has crowded the offices and the departments to such an extent that something had to be done. The ministers themselves did not care to take the responsibility of putting these men out, the deputy ministers could not put them out, there was nobody to put them out, and so the Government had to get Arthur Young and Company and Grif-fenhagen from a foreign country, and send them sword in hand into these different departments to kill, slay, destroy, and kick out these people for whom the ministers had no use. The departments had become overloaded with these men by reason of promises and patronage, and when these foreigners came to put them out it cost this country, according to the statement made by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), which I believe is correct, $139,666 -just to relieve the congestion in the departments that had been brought about by the mis-management of hon. gentlemen opposite.
A couple of years ago, when this matter was brought up in the House, I tried to illustrate conditions in the Civil Service by telling a little story that someone told me about the conditions in the departments in Ottawa. A minister of the Crown promised a man a job. The man came up here looking for the job, but there was no job for him. He knocked about the minister's office for a few days, and at last, in despair, the minister gave him a note
to the deputy, "For God's sake do something with this fellow. I must get him out of my office and out of my sight. Put him somewhere." The deputy had to obey, and was perhaps willing to obey, the behests of his master. He told this fellow: "Here is a pile of blue books. Take them out of here and put them away back there. Then when you have done that, put them in that room over there, then you can bring them back here. Keep at it all the time." Well, the man started in to move these books around from one place to the other, and kept at it continually for a week or so. Then he came back to the deputy minister and said: "Mr. Brown, I am not going to stay here. I am going away. There is something the matter. There is a blooming Bolshevist or something in this office that follows me around wherever I go. ff I go into this room he is after me. If I go into that room he follows me there, and when I come back here, he is here too." "Oh, don't be alarmed about that," said the deputy, "that is your assistant." Such was the condition of things. The man himself had nothing to do, but he was given a helper to assist him, and I suppose there was somebody else helping the helper. That is the condition the Civil Service has arrived at.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us with gusto and a great pounding of wood this afternoon that in one department he found 475 men who were actually doing nothing, so he turned them out. He had put these men in himself; Griffenhagen found out there was nothing for them to do, so the minister told Griffenhagen to decapitate them. The minister has gained glory in the country for putting them in and now he is looking for more glory for putting them out, and I suppose there will be more glory coming to the Government for putting these fellows in once more again. Out they go, and in they come, and so the merry-go-round will go for the short time ahead of this Government. That is the way things are being done in the Civil Service. Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh as if it were not a serious matter. Do they not think that the people of this country are a serious, sane people? Do they not think that our people are a Godfearing, truth-telling people, and have a right to believe what solemn old gentlemen who are ministers of the Crown tell them? No, they seem to glory in being able to camouflage the people of this country, and think them foolish mortals if they believe for one moment that the Government are serious about anything they tell them.
[Mr. McKenzie. J
And no wonder they reach that conclusion when I find resolutions of this kind being passed in some parts of the country. Here is a resolution that was sent to me, to the effect that there was no patronage in this country, that the Government was keeping to its word, and that it would be a pity to disturb them in the magnificent way they were carrying out their promises in 1917:
Whereas the Dominion Government in 1918 passed an Act entitled ''The Civil Service Act of Canada", by which Act political patronage was abolished and all future appointments and promotions were to be made by merit, and
Whereas we have ample proof that the sale Act is operating independent of politica leanings, service and merit being the main con sideration in appointments and promotions,
Therefore be it resolved that this association places itself on record as being unalterably opposed to any return to political patronage so far as the Civil Service of Canada is concerned, and that a copy of the foregoing resolution be forwarded to the Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada, the members representing Nova Scotia in the House of Commons the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and to the press of Halifax.
That has come to me from the fair province of Nova Scotia, where there are good honest men living quietly in the land of the apple blossom, men who go to church regularly, say their prayers as they should, eat plenty of fish, and sleep soundly at night, and believe that there is yet such a thing in this world as honesty. Well, in the simplicity of their hearts, they sent in this resolution and requested me to back it up in the House. I have submitted it to the House, not because I believe its contents, but, Mr. Speaker, I have been here too long and have watched the manoeuvrings of hon. gentlemen opposite too closely to be deceived in any way as to what their intention is and the way in which they execute it. But I read the resolution to show how people can be deceived and how they are led to put confidence where it really is not merited.
If the Civil Service Act were carried out properly I believe that it would work well, so far, at all events, as the Inside Service is concerned, and possibly the only way in which that service can be efficiently managed is by means of the Civil Service Act. Of course, it works both ways. It is clumsy and impossible to expect the Civil Service Commission to make appointments in remote parts of the country, and, on the other hand, it would be impossible to ask myself or any other man who lives in the extreme East or the extreme West to make an appointment at Ottawa. For that reason I believe that the Civil Service Commission should be given full control of the
Inside Service, as was done by the Liberal government in 1908. But I do believe that as regards minor appointments and appointments that have to be made in country constituencies, they would more properly be attended to by members supporting the Government.
Some hon. gentleman has said that the patronage should be given to defeated candidates and members not supporting the Government. I do not believe that myself. I am a party man; I make no bones about that fact. I believe in the party system, and I think that a proper, honestly conducted party is one of the essentials of clean government in this country. I am in favour of party, not because of any profit that the system could bring to me or to my friends, but because it is indispensable to wholesome government. We have not found any better way of governing this country than by means of the party system. It is therefore absolutely essential that that system should exist, and if the patronage which any party has charge of while in power is given to its friends and the work is properly done, I have no complaint to make. But what I do object to is that there should be deception, that men should parade the country and come to my friends saying: "Vote for me, because we have abolished patronage; we are all alike; there is no difference between us;" whereas, in their hearts, they know that this is not so and that patronage will be given to their friends.
Most extraordinary things happen in my riding, where there is a large population and a great variety of government interests. Appointments are made now and again, and I have frequently tried to help out. On one occasion particularly, where there were two offices vacant, I suggested that one from each party should be appointed in view of the fact that patronage no longer existed. But, nothing of the kind was done. Every time the Government happened to light upon their own friends, nothing but a Tory, and a good Tory, was appointed. Will the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Finance, or some sage of the Government, tell me how it is that the prophetic vision of the Civil Service Commission has every time lit upon a Tory? Is the olfactory nerve of the chairman, and of those around him, developed to such a degree that, merely by existence in such a Tory atmosphere, they can at a distance of fifteen hundred or two thousand miles pick out a Tory from amongst other
mortals? Yet, that is what is happening. So that it is mere camouflage and deception to say that these appointments are made as a result of observation, examinations, literary tests, etc., when these various devices always achieve the end of selecting a supporter of the Government. I would say to the Government at once that if they desire to fulfil their promise that patronage would be abolished they should immediately determine to be honest about these things and to make these appointments in such a way as shall leave no room for suspicion.
Now, before I sit down, I want to have a word or two with the Minister of Justice in regard to his rush to the defence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon. No doubt the artillery which was turned on the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the direction of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was pretty hot, and the Minister of Justice, finding that the defence of his right hon. friend who sat alongside him had been badly demolished, thought that it was really time to rush to his aid, heedless of the fact that possibly there was no call from that gentlemen's friends for him to espouse his cause. I do not know how it was, but my right hon. friend's mind drifted into Holy Writ. Now, we do not very often find him in that realm.
His law is usually very good, although, I must say, sometimes rather prosy. However, he generally succeeds in reaching his objective; I must do him that justice. As a reward of good hearing, keen attention, patience and good staying powers, one is generally able to get one's money's worth when the right hon. minister is expounding law. But this afternoon he made a dreadful mistake in his incursion into foreign ground. At last he found himself among the prophets; he found himself with Saul and other characters he does not meet very often. I could not understand what he was driving at when he said: "The offence is about to. come, but woe unto him through whom it. cometh." That is a prophecy. It was uttered at a time when it was half prophecy and half preaching. But it never occurred to the right hon. gentlemen to reflect on the occasion that called forth that prophecy. It was made shortly before the great tragedy of nearly two thousand years ago. "The offence is about to come, but woe unto him through whom it
cometh." The right hon. gentlemen never thought of the two principal characters that were going to carry out the prophecy -two striking characters. One of them was Pontius Pilate, and the other was Judas Iscariot.
I have no difficulty in replying to my right hon. friend. I believe myself that Pontius Pilate was a lawyer; I have no doubt about that. He was a lawyer in authority administering justice; so is my right hon. friend.
And, if I mistake not, Judas Iscariot was commercially inclined, and in the political arrangements of those days he would be Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have only to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I would advise the Minister of Justice, to ponder more carefully over what the outcome of his Biblical quotations will be in the future.
I have learned many things this evening. I have learned that we have spent the whole day for nothing, because this resolution is going to be withdrawn. Before it is withdrawn I have one or two observations to make. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I do not care for patronage. In 1917 I was elected against two opponents. They received eighty votes between them; so I do not care whether they get the patronage or not. One thing that I do object to, is to have hon. gentlemen opposite declare that they are sincere in this matter. I would like them to demonstrate their sincerity. It is useless to seek to disguise matters; hon. gentlemen opposite are Tories. They go to bed Tories, and they wake np in the morning with another name, whether it be Arthur Young, Griffenhagen or something else. Mr. Speaker, you know me. You know that I am a Catholic. I profess no other religion. If I should say to you that I am a Catholic Protestant attending a Synagogue you would laugh at me, would you not? You would say that I was a fraud and you would be right. I leave the decision to you. You can find just as suitable a name to characterize hon. gentlemen opposite when they talk about their sincerity. As to the question of patronage and the making of appointments by the Civil
Service Commission, I believe there should be a competitive system. I think it is proper that the Civil Service Commission should make appointments; but as regards this petty appointment and that petty appointment, even in the case of a man who is employed in watching the building of a wharf, that is all nonsense. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a little sincerity in this matter for it is costing the country a lot of money. It is all well enough to say that at the Printing Bureau we have saved $600,000, but when we come to the Auditor General's Report we find that there has been a large sum paid for printing done outside the Bureau.
I shall not detain the House any longer except to say that we ought to be a little more serious than to spend a whole day discussing a resolution of this kind and then have it withdrawn. I am perfectly satisfied that what has been said by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is perfectly correct, and it will be hard for hon. gentlemen opposite to go around the country now and protest their sincerity in the matter of patronage- that patronage that was supposed to be abolished and never was.