been desirous of mastering and applying the principles of responsible
government to the dependency. Their opinions and instructions were
still distinguished by a perplexing vagueness. They would not believe
that a governor of a dependency could occupy exactly the same relation
with respect to his responsible advisers and to political parties as
is occupied with such admirable results by the sovereign of England.
It was considered necessary that a governor should make himself as
powerful a factor as possible in the administration of public
affairs--that he should be practically the prime minister,
responsible, not directly to the colonial legislature, but to the
imperial government, whose servant he was and to whom he should
constantly refer for advice and assistance whenever in his opinion the
occasion arose. In other words it was almost impossible to remove from
the mind of any British statesman, certainly not from the colonial
office of those days, the idea that parliamentary government meant one
thing in England and the reverse in the colonies, that Englishmen at
home could be entrusted with a responsibility which it was inexpedient
to allow to Englishmen or Frenchmen across the sea. The colonial
office was still reluctant to give up complete control of the local
administration of the province, and wished to retain a veto by means
of the governor, who considered official favour more desirable than
the approval of any colonial legislature. More or less imbued with
such views, Sir Charles Metcalfe was bound to come into conflict with
LaFontaine and Baldwin, who had studied deeply the principles and
practice of parliamentary government, and knew perfectly well that
they could be carried out only by following the precedents established
in the parent state.

It was not long before the rupture came between men holding views so
diametrically opposed to each other with respect to the conduct of