not neglected or sacrificed for party purposes. He quite understood that the system in England and in British colonies was that the Government could select, as they always did select, their own supporters for office. As a general rule, no doubt, either of the great parties would furnish a sufficient number of persons for the appoint

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said he desired to offer a few remarks in regard to the exercise of patronage and advice being tendered the Government by hon. members of the Opposition, in matters affecting their counties. He was convinced that "Blessed are they who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.' He would not be disappointed if he did not receive anything or his constituents. He quite believed in the doctrine that, when a man had not confidence in the Government, he could not expect to receive any benefit. He was also strong in the opinion that, if a member of the Opposition were asked to give advice to the Government, he should not give it. In 1818 or 1849 when the Baldwin-Lafontaine

Government was in power, Mr. Baldwin wrote him (Sir John A. Macdonald) a note stating they were about to issue a new Commission of the Peace for the counties of Frontenac and Addington, one of the constituencies in which he represented, and asking him to give advice to the Government. He wrote Mr. Baldwin thanking him for his kindness, and saying that, as he did not support the Government, he could not properly tender him any advice; and he found afterwards that the principle he then laid down was the correct one. When that was the case, an additional responsibility was thrown on the Government, just in the same way as when a prisoner has no counsel the Judge became counsel for him. So, when a county was represented by a member who could not conscienciously support

ments.

MR. BOWELL enquired whether the extra clerks, to whom attention had been previously called, had been placed on the permanent staff or discharged, so that there must either have been a

great number of vacancies during the year, or since the return was made out, which were filled out of these 17 extra clerks, or they must have been dismissed-the one or the other. He trusted that next year's accounts would verify the statement of the hon. the Postmaster-General.

MR. HUNTINGTON said he was happy to be in a position to assure the hon. gentleman that his gratification would be real. Ever since he came into the Post-Office Department he had sympathized with the view which the hon. gentleman expressed—that the Estimates ought to show the permanent clerks of the Departments.

He had done his best to reduce the

staff of supernumeraries. They had not dismissed these persons, but dispensed with their services when their work was done. When vacancies had occurred, instead of importing new men into the Department, he had placed some of the supernumerary staff in their places; and he had sometimes taken the opportunity, when vacancies occurred outside, to supply them with men on this list, as far as he possibly could, in order to reach the desideratum which the hon. gentleman advocated.

MR. CARTWRIGHT said that the several items were given in detail on page 17.

MR. BLANCHET said he would like to know why a great difference was made between the contingent expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Departments.

MR. CARTWRIGHT said that, for a very considerable time back, the expense of the Patent Record had caused the keeping of a considerable number of extra clerks, who had been on the staff for several years. Feeling that there was very considerable force in the view taken by the House as to the propriety of having these clerks represented in the accounts, he was quite disposed on this occasion, at any rate, to accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) and restore the vote there to the ordinary amount of $8,000, and bring down in the Supplementary Estimates an additional vote for the Patent Branch for the number of extra clerks. No great saving would thus be effected, he was bound to say; but he agreed that the principle advocated by the hon. member for Compton was correct.

He

had communicated his view to the

would

hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who, on consideration, concurred with him; and he therefore restore it to the previous amount of $8,000, and take in the Supplementary Estimates a vote for the extra number of clerks required. He had found that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) was right in stating that these clerks had been employed for a very considerable time, and he was also probably right in believing that the continued expenditure for the Patent Office left no reasonable ground for any expectation that their services would be dispensed with. He would make this item $159,000, on the understanding that $8,000 would be appropriated to the Department of Agriculture; and in the Supplementary Estimates he would provide for the number of clerks who ought to be permanently on the Patent Branch. There would be no difference, in the total vote, but it would be placed differently.

MR. POPE (Compton) said he was very glad to hear the statement of the

hon. the Minister of Finance. He would again urge that, as these extra clerks were very young, and as they received more pay than a good many officers who had been in the service

before them, it was unfair to these other officials to put them on the staff at their present salaries. These young men should have gone in as probationary clerks, and worked themselves up, as the others had done. To put them in at once with salaries of $750 would be to do a great injustice

to the others. This had been a cause

The former

of great complaint, because it gave the latter no encouragement. should not be put on with higher salaries than those allowed to third-class clerks. He would now beg to rectify a statement made during the recent debate on the Budget by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross). The hon. gentleman, referring to the immigration question, said:

"That in 1873, 99,000 immigrants landed in Canada, and 49,000 removed to the Western States. In 1874, 80,000 landed and 40,000 went to the United States, But in the year ending June, 1875, the first year of the present Government, 36,000 landed, while only 9,000 left for the United States." His impression on hearing the hon. that he (Mr. Ross) conveyed the idea gentleman discuss this question was that this number of people left Canada for the United States. If so, the statement was entirely erroneous. These people came through to go to the United States, having bought through tickets in Europe. Their destination was the United States, and, consequently, this had nothing to do with people leaving Canada for the United States. Apart from that, the figures. mind the hon. gentleman said that, in were incorrect. They would bear in 1875, the total number which lett for the United States was 9,000. He had looked over the figures carefully, and

he found that the total number which arrived in Canada was 35,319, while the total number that remained in Canada was 18,047; hence the number

that went to the United States was

17,272, instead of 9,000, which made a gentleman also said: very important difference. The hon.

"And in 1877, 32,716 immigrants came to Canada, and 5,610 removed across the border."

This was incorrect. The total number of immigrants that came to Canada in 1877 was 23,532; the total number that settled in Canada was 15,323; and the total number that went to the United States must, of course, have been 8,209; so that, in place of more remaining, in proportion, about the same number remained in this country during those several years. He thought it right to correct this matter now, since the statement had gone to the country, as he had not spoken during the debate in question.

MR. MACKENZIE: Will the hon. gentleman show me his figures?

MR. POPE: I would rather not, now. I will, however, send you Mr. Ross's figures if you wish them.

MR. MACKENZIE: I will take another opportunity of calling the hon. gentleman's attention to them.

MR. POPE: I will take the earliest opportunity of discussing the whole matter for the hon. gentleman's benefit, and for the House; and then the hon. gentleman shall have everyone of these figures.

Vote agreed to.

19. Stationery Office for stationery...... $13,000

MR. LANGEVIN: Will the hon. gentleman explain the reduction made in this vote?

MR. CARTWRIGHT said they had not spent quite as much as had been voted under this item in 1876-7. The expenditure then was $13,000 or $14,000, and he thought that they could get on, at any rate, with this estimate. The hon. gentleman, probably, knew that these two votes: Departmental Contingencies and Stationery, were generally put together; he would observe that the items of $175,000 and $20,000 had been lumped together as $195,000, while the total expenditure in that year was $157,479; leaving a total balance, below the estimate, of $37,520. They thought that they could probably get along with $13,000, under these circumstances. The stationery vote vote was distributed over

MR. LANGEVIN: How much of this was spent last year ?

MR. CARTWRIGHT: Apparently not more than $2,700. For a considerable time a vote of $75,000 was sarried, but it was brought back to the old amount of $10,000. In 1876-7, apparently, about $2,720 was spent. It was one of those items which had been kept at a liberal figure; and, though he did not think the amount asked would all be spent, he thought, as the other items had been cut down closely, it would not be wise to stint this one.

MR. LAFLAMME said the amount asked was the same as that granted last year; it was statutory.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: If it is statutory, why do we vote upon it?

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD: What is this money for? We have no details.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: It is too general.

MR. LAFLAMME said it was wanted for purposes similar to those enumerated in the Accounts for last year.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said the Accounts referred to contained a number of items which were not likely to crop up again; they were exceptional items of expenditure.

MR. LAFLAMME said it was necessary to provide for contingencies.

MR. MACKENZIE mentioned that a large sum was expended in the punishment of those engaged in the Indian massacre at Cypress Hills. That expedition alone cost over $10,000.

MR. KIRKPATRICK said that should have been charged along with other unforeseen circumstances. MR. MACKENZIE said it was a

together in one place.

Vote agreed to.

which it was placed. $5,000 was spent, but

Last year only a large sum of

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said that, as only $5,000 was spent last year, there did not seem any necessity for voting such a large sum as $20,000. The proper course to take would be to calculate the expenditure for several years, under this heading, and strike an average as the sum to be asked for this time. There was no evidence before the

Committee of Supply that such a large sum was wanted, and it had always been laid down as a principle in that House that there must be a justification for, not a mere probability of, such expenditure before the estimate was voted.

MR. LAFLAMME said the items

under this head comprised not only the North-West Territory, but ordinary cases connected with the administration of justice which would otherwise fall under contingencies. The year before last, the total expenditure in that Department amounted to $14,000.

MR. PLUMB said that more than 80 per cent. of that was for an exceptional affair—the Cypress Hills murder

case.

MR. CARTWRIGHT said the matter was discussed before the estimate was put in, and this fact, which deserved the consideration of the Committee, was pointed out. Although we had established our Mounted Police stations, the magistrates had not yet fairly got settled at their posts, and the criminals, who, by the better administration of justice in that territory, had increased in number as far as apprehensions went, had, along with witnesses, to be taken great distances for trial, thereby causing great expense. As Minister of Finance, he had no objection to this item being reduced from $20,000 to $10,000 or $12,000, because, at this particular juncture, it was for his interest that the probable expenditure should be as low as possible, but as, at the present moment, there was a tribe of Indians known for their hostile propensities on the frontier, with whom

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD said the expenditure connected with the Mounted Police was not taken out of this Department.

MR. CARTWRIGHT said that was perfectly true, but expenses incurred by the Police, in the conveyance of prisoners and witnesses, came out of this Department.

MR. BLAKE explained that this vote was first proposed after Con$10,000, but as, after the expedition to federation. Originally, it was only Cypress Hills it was deemed that there should be more elasticity, a vote of $20,000 en bloc was proposed. There could be no doubt that the rapid increase in the population of the NorthWest districts would cause a much

greater expenditure, and, until a Proable annual charge would devolve on vince was organized there, a considerthis Government. Under these circumstances, it would, he thought, be imprudent to propose a reduction of

the estimate.