force them into a mould of my own forming.

You will observe that no question of principle or of public policy has
been mooted by either party during the negotiation. The whole
discussion has turned upon personal considerations. This is, I fancy,
a pretty fair sample of Canadian politics. It is not even pretended
that the divisions of party represent corresponding divisions of
sentiment on questions which occupy the public mind; such as
Voluntaryism, Free Trade, &c., &c. Responsible government is the only
subject on which this coincidence is alleged to exist. The opponents
of the Administration are supposed to dissent from the views held by
Lord Metcalfe upon it, though it is not so clear that its supporters
altogether adopt them. That this delicate and most debatable subject
should furnish the watchwords of party is most inconvenient.

In enumerating the difficulties which surround such questions as Union
of the provinces, Emigration, &c., you omit the greatest of them all;
viz.: the materials with which I have to work in carrying out any
measures for the public advantage. There are half a dozen parties
here, standing on no principles, and all intent on making political
capital out of whatever turns up. It is exceedingly difficult, under
such circumstances, to induce public men to run the risk of adopting
any scheme that is bold or novel.

Keenly alive to the evil of this state of things, Lord Elgin was not less
sensible that the blame of it did not rest with the existing generation of
Canadian politicians, but that it was the result of a variety of
circumstances, some of which it was impossible to regret.

Several causes (he wrote) co-operate together to give to personal and