joint provinces themselves, it was loyally and wisely determined to
refer the matter to the Queen. That Her Majesty has
constitutionally the power to call the Parliament of Canada at any
town of Canada which she may select, admits, I conceive, of no
doubt. It is, I imagine, within her prerogative to call the
Parliament of England where she may please within that realm,
though her lieges would be somewhat startled if it were called
otherwhere than in London. It was therefore well done to ask Her
Majesty to act as arbiter in the matter. But there are not wanting
those in Canada who say that in referring the matter to the Queen
it was in truth referring it to those by whom very many of the
Canadians were least willing to be guided in the matter; to the
Governor-General namely, and the Colonial Secretary. Many indeed
in Canada now declare that the decision simply placed the matter in
the hands of the Governor-General.

Be that as it may, I do not think that any unbiased traveler will
doubt that the best possible selection has been made, presuming
always, as we may presume in the discussion, that Montreal could
not be selected. I take for granted that the rejection of Montreal
was regarded as a sine qua non in the decision. To me it appears
grievous that this should have been so. It is a great thing for
any country to have a large, leading, world-known city, and I think
that the government should combine with the commerce of the country
in carrying out this object. But commerce can do a great deal more
for government than government can do for commerce. Government has
selected Ottawa as the capital of Canada; but commerce has already
made Montreal the capital, and Montreal will be the chief city of
Canada, let government do what it may to foster the other town.
The idea of spiting a town because there has been a row in it seems