Patronage, in the mid-and late-nineteenth century, was central to Canadian politics. This period also witnessed a series of debates concerning the civil service and a range of reforms that attempted to eliminate patronage. This dissertation argues that, more than debates about administration and appointments, these were also struggles over how to construct the ideal civil servant and civil service. These were highly political issues that were beset by processes of inclusion and exclusion,

more »

... ally with respect to gender, class, and race. In short, these were debates about the many facets of liberal governmentality and state formation in early modern Canada. This dissertation also analyzes letters to federal politicians asking for appointments. Among other things, these documents expressed a range of opinions on how the bureaucracy should be managed, staffed and constructed. Letters asking for patronage also demonstrated how aspiring public servants understood and expected the appointment process to work. These letters reflected what type of people should have access to the civil service, and what type of people the applicants thought they were. As such, they informed and were themselves informed by broader political and administrative debates. These politics of Canadian patronage, I argue, were central to the everyday processes of state formation. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the staff, faculty, and intellectual climate at Carleton's Department of History and Institute of Political Economy. The opportunity to participate in a range of coursework, conferences, and discussions contributed to, changed, and sharpened my thinking about history, theory, and politics. Institute all deserve thanks for making Carleton's bureaucracy always seem rational and never like an iron cage. Special thanks to my supervisor, John C. Walsh, whose friendship, mentorship, and advice have been invaluable in developing my work, thinking, and teaching. His guidance transformed what seemed like an impossible amount of work into a manageable task. His unflagging enthusiasm for this project was contagious and made even the difficult work of revising, improving and editing an exciting process. Most importantly, John always reminded me of why I wanted to be a historian. My examination committee, Professors Ian Radforth, Peter Hodgins, Bruce Curtis, and Dominique Marshall, provided generous thoughts, advice, and productive criticisms for how to improve this work. Drs. Marshall and Curtis were both kind enough to direct me in a reading course on state formation, as were Dr. Blair Rutherford and Dr. Cristina Rojas. The influence of these readings and meetings is demonstrated throughout this entire dissertation. It was also in one of these sessions that Dr. Curtis suggested this dissertation's title. iv