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 party interests the overweening importance which attaches to them in the estimation of local politicians.  There are no real grievances here to stir the depths of the popular mind.  We are a comfortable people, with plenty to eat and drink, no privileged classes to excite envy, or taxes to produce irritation.  It were ungrateful to view these blessings with regret, and yet I believe that they account in some measure for the selfishness of public men and their indifference to the higher aims of statesmanship.

[Sidenote:  Responsible government.]

The comparatively small number of members of which the popular bodies who determine the fate of provincial administrations consist, is also, I am inclined to think, unfavourable to the existence of a high order of principle and feeling among official personages.  A majority of ten in an assembly of seventy may probably be, according to Cocker, equivalent to a majority of 100 in an assembly of 700.  In practice, however, it is far otherwise.  The defection of two or three individuals from the majority of ten puts the administration in peril.  Thence the perpetual patchwork and trafficking to secure this vote and that, which (not to mention other evils) so engrosses the time and thoughts of ministers, that they have not leisure for matters of greater moment.  It must also be remembered that it is only of late that the popular assemblies in this part of the