on, that Newcastle had to reprove him, in 1863, for sending so
little news that the Colonial Office could have furnished no
information on Canada to the Houses of Parliament had they called for
papers.[27] During the confederation negotiations, the governor made
an admirable referee, or impartial centre, round whom the diverse
interests might group themselves: but no one could say that events were
shaped or changed by his action. The warmest language used concerning
Her Majesty's representative in Canada may be found in the speech of
Macdonald in the confederation debate: "We place no restriction on Her
Majesty's prerogative in the selection of her representative. The
Sovereign has unrestricted freedom of choice. Whether in making {326}
her selection she may send us one of her own family, a Royal Prince, as
a Viceroy to rule us, or one of the great statesmen of England to
represent her, we know not.... But we may be permitted to hope that
when the union takes place, and we become the great country which
British North America is certain to be, it will be an object worthy the
ambition of the statesmen of England to be charged with presiding over
our destinies."[28]

Apart from the viceregal operations of the governor, the direct action
of the Crown was called for by the province in one notable but
unfortunate incident, the choice of a new capital. Torn asunder by the
strife of French and English, Canada was unable, or at least unwilling,
to commit herself to the choice of a definitive capital, after Montreal
had been rendered impossible by the turbulence of its mobs. So the
Queen's personal initiative was invited. But the awkwardness of the
step was revealed in 1858, when a division in the House practically
flung her decision contemptuously aside--happily only for the moment,
and informally. George Brown was absolutely right when he said: "I
yield to no man for a single {327} moment in loyalty to the Crown of
England, and in humble respect and admiration of Her Majesty. But what
has this purely Canadian question to do with loyalty? It is a most
dangerous and ungracious thing to couple the name of Her Majesty with
an affair so entirely local, and one as to which the sectional feelings
of the people are so excited."[29] It had become apparent, long before
1867, that while the loyalty of the province to the Sovereign, and the
personal influence of her representative were bonds of union, real, if
hard to describe