deed it is difficult to see how common
action between the opposing interests could have continued with any
real benefit to the public. On May 23rd, that is six months before the
resignation, Captain Higginson, the Governor's civil secretary, had an
interview with La Fontaine, to ascertain his views on the appointment
of a provincial aide-de-camp, and on general topics. The accuracy of
Higginson's _precis_ of the conversation was challenged by La Fontaine,
but its terms seem moderate and probable, and do not misrepresent the
actual position of the Executive Council in 1843--a determined
opposition to the governor-general's attempt to destroy government by
party: "Mr. La Fontaine said, 'Your attempts to carry on the government
on principles of conciliation must fail. Responsible government has
been conceded, and when we lose our majority we are prepared to retire;
to strengthen us we must have the entire confidence of the
Governor-general exhibited most {173} unequivocally--and also his
patronage--to be bestowed exclusively on our political adherents. We
feel that His Excellency has kept aloof from us. The opposition
pronounce that his sentiments are with them. There must be some acts
of his, some public declaration in favour of responsible government,
and of confidence in the Cabinet, to convince them of their error.
This has been studiously avoided.'"[14] The truth is that the ministry
felt the want of confidence, which, on the governor's own confession,
existed in his mind towards them. Believing, too, as all of them did
more or less, in party, they must already have learned the views of
Metcalfe on that subject, and they suspected him of taking counsel with
the conservatives, whom Metcalfe declared to be the only true friends
to Britain in Canada. Matters of patronage Metcalfe had determined, as
far as possible, to free from party dictation; and so he and his
ministers naturally fell out on the most obvious issue which their
mutual differences could have raised. There was nothing disingenuous
in the popular party claiming that the patronage question stood in this
case for the broader issue. Indeed Metcalfe's own statement that "he
objected to the {174} exclusive distribution of patronage with party
views and maintained the principle that office ought, in every
instance, to be given to the man best qualified to render efficient
service to the State" was actually a challenge to the predominance of
the party-ca