compromises which furnished their ultimate solution, his was the guiding hand; we shall understand the long and difficult road upon which the young legislator was entering when the people of Kingston first chose him as their representative; we shall be prepared to make allowance for many a mistake, as well as for those changes of policy or conviction which come from enlarged experience; and it will be difficult not to mark with admiration that gradual widening of power which enabled him to grapple successfully with the higher problems of statesmanship.

CHAPTER II

FIRST TEN YEARS OF POLITICAL LIFE

THE

1844 TO 1854

HE election which brought Macdonald into parliament was very distinctly connected with the struggle for the establishment of responsible government. The theory of that system, understood to have been recommended by Lord Durham, had, it was generally assumed, been accepted by the imperial government in framing the Union Act of 1840. But it proved more easy to have the principle of responsible government adopted in theory than fully carried out in practice. Even Lord Sydenham, who had been sent out to complete the work of union, found it difficult to believe that a governor-general could be responsible to the government at home and also to the legislature of the colony, but nevertheless he so far concealed his doubts as to gain credit at the time for being a true disciple of Lord Durham.

When Lord Sydenham was cut off by a premature death in September, 1841, he was succeeded by Sir Charles Bagot, under whose management progress was made in strengthening the power of the assembly. Recognizing the necessity of governing through men who enjoyed public

confidence, he introduced the Reform leaders, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. LaFontaine, into the administration, though without formally placing its control in their hands. It was a serious blow to continuity of policy when Sir Charles Bagot was compelled by ill-health to resign the post of governor-general after having held it only one year. His successor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, was a man of high principle and patriotic purpose, but of less tact than his two predecessors. His ideas of government had been derived chiefly from service in tropical countries, where a large dependent population was to be kept under control. In both the East and West Indies he had filled important posts and had acquitted himself with great credit. But the training thus received was not the best preparation for the duties of a constitutional ruler, and still less for inaugurating a system professedly founded on new ideas in colonial administration. While admitting that his advisers should be taken from those who commanded the confidence of parliament, he strenuously resisted the claim of his advisers that the royal patronage in the matter of appointments to office should be regarded and used as an instrument for the advancement of party interests. The result was that the Reform members of the government which he found in power, headed by Mr. Robert Baldwin and Mr. LaFontaine, resigned in the autumn of 1843 in consequence of his having appointed a

SIR CHARLES METCALFE

certain person to a local office without their advice or consent. As the resigning ministers commanded an overwhelming majority in parliament, and as the governor-general remained fixed in his opinion that to accede to their demands would not only impair the dignity of the Crown, but lower the tone of public life, the constitutional difficulty seemed well-nigh insuperable.

The conflict which which followed evoked evoked the greatest bitterness of party feeling, and put a severe strain upon the whole system of government. The governor-general's first attempts to form a new administration failed, and for a short time he had the assistance of only a single minister, Mr. Dominick Daly. A little later he secured the powerful aid of Mr. (afterwards chief-justice) Draper, of Upper Canada, and that of Mr. Viger, representing Lower Canada. For some time the government was carried on by means of this skeleton of a regular cabinet. Meanwhile party passion was stirred to its depths throughout the country. Reformers denounced Sir Charles Metcalfe as a despot; the Conservative party acclaimed him as the upholder of the true balance of the constitution. Behind the diatribes, inspired mainly by party feeling, which pictured opponents of either side as unscrupulous or malignant, it is possible now in the cold light of history to recognize the sincerity of conviction in both parties to this great struggle. While the memories of rebellion were

still fresh and its embers still smouldering—when men who had taken part in the late uprising continued to wield great popular influence, and while much doubt existed as to the motives or aims of the extreme men of the Reform party, it is little wonder that Conservatives as a whole looked to the representative of the Crown as the true safeguard of their most valued traditions, and so rallied to his support. There is a type of mind, and that not the least worthy of respect, which rates loyalty as high as liberty.

The iron of the American revolution, from which they or their fathers had suffered so much, rankled in the hearts of the United Empire Loyalists, and they dreaded, more than anything else, a repetition in their new country of what had taken place in the old colonies. On the other hand, the constitutional argument of the Reformers was sound and their ideal inspiring. In their ranks were men whose ability was combined with genuine sincerity of purpose. In the end they triumphed, but they would have triumphed more speedily had not the violence of followers thrown doubt upon the loyalty of their purpose. The one redeeming feature in this great struggle lay in the fact that it compelled the combatants to clearly think out their political principles.

For almost nine months Sir Charles Metcalfe carried on the government with the few ministers who were found willing to take office without