The effect of all these instances upon public opinion was well described by an editorial in The Vancouver Daily Province published on Aug. 14. In this editorial the newspaper criticized Mr. Stevens for imputing unworthy motives to the Liberal leader and Mr. King for overworking the constitutional issue, and asked whether there were not any real problems to discuss in Canada any more. "Mr. King and his constitutional intricacies," The Province summed up the matter, "Mr. Stevens and the ex-Premier's ancestry, Mr. McGeer and the freight rates, Mr. Fraser of Nova Scotia and secession, Mr. Meighen and his too great insistence on the Customs scandal; they are all talking about things that either are not real issues at all or are not national issues or are not issues of the first importance, and they are allowing these lesser things to lead them into personalities and absurdities that are having the effect of disgusting people with politics."

Undoubtedly the temper reflected in this editorial was prevalent among the electorate and was one of the reasons why the Customs maladministration was overshadowed as an issue in the Election.

The Campaign in Quebec. The electoral battle in the Province of Quebec was opened by Mr. Patenaude's speech in Ottawa on July 20. Right at the outset of his speech, Mr. Patenaude explained the change which had taken place in his attitude since the previous Election. He said:

Not very long ago, describing a then existing situation in political affairs, I stated in effect that I was as free of control of the leader of the Conservative party as I was of that of the leader of the Liberal party. The then conditionone of some years' standing-was an unfortunate condition. The political party, whereof in Dominion affairs the Rt. Hon. Mr. Meighen was the leader, had to a very large extent lost contact with the Quebec section of the party. The situation, an unfortunate one as I have said, was ended recently by a rapprochement for which I acknowledge that most of the credit goes to Mr. Meighen. Under circumstances which in a man of smaller calibre might have produced a different reaction, he, following upon the events of last Fall, came into our Province, met us, talked to us in our own tongue, and convinced us that there was still to-day room within the Conservative party for the realization of our aspirations as there was in the old days of Cartier and Macdonald.

Mr. Patenaude devoted his speech mainly to emphasizing the need of stable government and took as his text these words: "There is no hope for a country that is unable to provide itself with stable government." He declared that the Province of Quebec earnestly believed "that a sane protective policy is necessary to the life and progress of Canada." Quebec, he affirmed, had supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier consistently because he gave to them "the boon of a reasonably protective policy" and provided stable government. Stable government had ceased, he contended, with the advent of Mr. King to power in 1921, and no chance for stability was discernible if reliance was placed upon the Liberal party. Mr. Patenaude upheld the right of Mr. Meighen to dissolution and called upon Conservatives and Liberals to "vote and work for the pre

servation of your country-for stable government." Montreal, July 21, 1926.)

(The Gazette,

Mr. Patenaude conducted a vigorous campaign and spoke in all sections of the Province of Quebec. He was the centre of attack by Liberals, prominent among whom were Hon. Lucien Cannon, Solicitor-General, and Hon. Raoul Dandurand, Government leader in the Senate. Mr. Cannon charged Mr. Patenaude with having forgotten his pledges when he accepted office under Mr. Meighen. (Montreal Daily Star, Aug. 20.) Mr. Dandurand credited the alliance between Mr. Patenaude and Mr. Meighen to Mr. Meighen's speech at Hamilton in which he announced that he would favour consulting the people before committing the country to war. "But all Mr. Meighen's lieutenants have repudiated the Hamilton speech ideas," said Senator Dandurand. "How will he consult the people? Like in 1917 and with special and extraordinary laws? Then Mr. Patenaude may throw up his portfolio again but it will be too late. The harm will have been done." (The Gazette, Montreal, Aug. 30.)

Mr. Bourassa strongly opposed Mr. Patenaude as he had in the campaign of 1925. He remarked that Mr. Patenaude during the last year had "seen the light" and had declared that the Conservative party was now united; and in this connection he asked on what issues it was a unit-the Tariff, or war, or the Alberta School question? He reviewed this last subject in detail and said that after Premier Brownlee of Alberta had accepted a provision which secured the school rights guaranteed in 1875 and diminished. in 1905, the pressure of the Orange Order had caused him to withdraw from that position. Did Mr. Patenaude agree with Hon. J. W. Edwards on this issue, asked Mr. Bourassa; and he declared that if Mr. Patenaude wished to appeal to Quebec voters with hopes of success he would have to "come out of the woods." (Le Devoir, Aug. 9, 1926).

Dealing with the Tariff, Mr. Bourassa said that, from the point of view of theory, free trade had always appealed to him as the only true economic doctrine, but that owing to world conditions and the particular situation of Canada, it was inapplicable. Protection was necessary for industries which gave value to Canada's natural products; but he had always denounced a system which would build up artificial industries and under which the consumers would be exploited. He denied that Quebec was most interested of all the provinces in the maintenance of protection, but asserted that from the family point of view, Quebec was most concerned to oppose a policy which would raise prices on the necessaries of life. (Le Devoir, Sept. 10, 1926). He gave as one of his chief reasons for supporting Mr. King the attitude of the latter on the general question of war. In eight out of nine provinces, he said, it had been made a reproach to Mr. King, that he had not gone to the War, though neither Mr. Meighen nor Mr. Patenaude had gone. "The crime of Mr. King," he said, "is that he did not work to send

our sons to the slaughter. In the eyes of those who consider that it is the duty of Canada to ruin herself for the glory of England that is perhaps a crime. In the eyes of true Canadians it ought to be a reason for supporting Mr. King, to permit him to carry to the next Imperial Conference in London the expression of our sentiments and to speak there the clear language of the Canadian nation, faithful to the King of England, but faithful also to herself, to her sons, to her future, to her mission as a people in America." (Le Devoir, Sept. 10, 1926.) Mr. Bourassa's views on the constitutional issue are contained in the sub-section on that subject.

The railway issue did not play so large a part in Quebec as it did in the Election of 1921. It was dealt with, however, in an election address which C. H. Cahan, ex-M.P. and Conservative candidate for St. Lawrence and St. George, issued on Aug. 21. This Manifesto ran:

The electors of Montreal do not, I think, desire that the National Railway system shall be transferred to and vested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; nor, so far as I can ascertain, do the officials of that Company advocate or even desire that any transfer or any organic consolidation of Canadian railway interests should be carried into effect, but that fair and equitable competitive conditions shall be maintained. (He called attention, however, in this connection to the net annual income deficit of $42,267,519 of the Canadian National Railways for the calendar year 1925, and declared that) there is, therefore, a strong popular demand that extensions to the National lines should, for some time to come, be restricted to those which are quite certain to prove profitable in their operation. (Montreal Daily Star, Aug. 21.)

One of the incidents in the campaign in Quebec was the purchase of La Patrie by a group of Conservative politicians who were supporting Mr. Patenaude. La Patrie announced itself by advertisement as "the only Protectionist Conservative French newspaper in Montreal." (The Globe, Toronto, July 30, 1926.)

The Maritime Provinces. What have come to be known as "Maritime Rights" formed the main issue of the Election in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Little was heard of the cry of secession which had poked its head up at various times in the discussion of Maritime grievances. Only one candidate, James Fraser, Liberal nominee in Pictou, N.S., announced himself as an advocate of such a course, and he was defeated. The broader question of Maritime grievances, however, was to the fore throughout the campaign and was discussed not only by the local political speakers, but by the leaders of the two great parties.

Mr. Meighen discussed the problem at his first meeting in the Maritime Provinces held at Moncton, N.B., on July 22. He stated that the two main issues for the Maritime Provinces were transportation and the Tariff. He denied that he would advocate the separation of the Intercolonial from the Canadian National or take it out of the jurisdiction of the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners. "I believe," he said, "that the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission should remain intact; but I realize that the