tion.' But the large immigration that flowed into Upper Canada for many years after the union soon gave the preponderance of population to that province, where in the course of no long time a demand was made for a representation in the legislature according to the population. This demand was always strenuously resisted by the Lower Canadian representatives as unjust in view of the conditions under which they entered the union. The Act itself afforded them sufficient protection inasmuch as it embodied the proviso that the governor could not assent to any bill of the legislature to alter the representation, unless it should have been passed with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members in each house. This clause was, however, suddenly repealed by the Imperial Act of 1854, empowering the legislature to alter the constitution of the legislative council, but no practical result ever followed in respect to the representa tion.3

1 In 1839, Lord Durham gave the population of Upper Canada at 400,000, and that of Lower Canada at 600,000, of whom 450,000 were French. The census compiler of 1870 gives the population of Upper Canada in 1840, at 432,159; of Nova Scotia in 1838, 202,575; of New Brunswick, in 1840, 156,162; of Assiniboia, 7,704 ; of Prince Edward Island, 47,042 in 1841. No figures are given for Lower Canada in 1840, but we find the number was 697,084 in 1844. The figures given by Lord Durham were as accurate as they could be made at the time.

23 and 4 Vict., c. 35, s. 26. This clause was added to the bill by the British Ministry to protect the French Canadian representation. Garneau, II. 480.

8 17 and 18 Vict., c. 118, s. 5. The legislature had never asked an amendment in this direction, and the history of the repeal is a mystery. Garneau, in the edition of 1859, accused Sir Francis Hincks of having been the inspiring cause; but in a pam

It is interesting to note that one of the expedients by which it was hoped to arrange the political conflict between the two sections was the principle of a double majority. In the course of the first decade after the union, prominent public men laid it down as necessary to the harmonious operation of the constitution, that no administration ought to continue in power unless it was supported by a majority from each section of the united provinces. As a matter of justice, it was urged, that no measure touching the interests of a particular province should be passed, except with the consent of a majority of its representatives. The principle had more or less recognition in the government and legislature after 1848.3 The very formation of the ministry, in which each province was equally represented, was an acknowledgment of the principle. But this acknowledgment, it was contended, was of no substantial value so long as the executive councillors taken from either section of the pro

phlet published in 1877, he denied it most emphatically. In a subsequent edition, the onus of the change is placed on Mr. Henry John Boulton, a member of the Legislative Assembly, who was in England in 1854,about the same time as Sir F. Hincks. Garneau (ed. of 1882), III., 275,376. In 1854, the total number of representatives 1n the Assembly was 130-65 from each province. 16 Vict., c. 152.

1 Messrs. Lafontaine and Caron to Mr. Draper, 1845. Turcotte I., 202-10.

2 Mr. Baldwin resigned in 1851 on a vote of the Upper Canada representatives adverse to the court of chancery, Turcotte II., 171-3. See remarks of Sir John A. Macdonald, Confederation Debates, 30.

See resolution moved by Mr. (now Sir Hector) Langevin, 19th of May, 1858.

vince did not possess the confidence of the majority of the representatives of that section in the assembly.' The principle, however specious in theory, was not at all practicable in legislation, and even its most strenuous supporters too often found that it could not be conveniently carried out in certain political crises. Its observance was always, to a great extent, a matter of political convenience, and it was at last abandoned even by its former advocates, who had urged it as the only means of doing justice to each province, and preserving the equality of representation provided in the constitution of 1840.2

The demands of the representatives from Upper Canada for additional representation were made so persistently that the time arrived when the administration of public affairs became surrounded with the gravest embarrassment. Parties at last were so equally balanced on account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration, and the course of legislation for a year or series of years. From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there were no less than five different ministries in charge of the public business.3 Legislation,

1 See amendment moved by Mr. Cauchon to Mr. Thibaudeau's motion. Jour. Ass. (1858) 145,876. Also Ib. (1856), 566.

2 Mr. J. Sandfield Macdonald was always one of its warmest supporters, on the ground that it did away with the necessity of a change in the representation, as advocated by Mr. Brown and his followers from Upper Canada; but he virtually gave it up on the separate school question in 1863, when a majority of the representatives of his own province pronounced against a measure to which he was pledged as the head of the MacdonaldSicotte Ministry. Turcotte II., 477-487. See Dent II., 429.

3 Sir J. A. Macdonald. Con. Deb., p. 26; Sir E. P. Taché, ib. 9.

in fact, was at last practically at a dead-lock, and it became an absolute political necessity to arrive at a practical solution of difficulties, which appeared to assume more gravity with the progress of events. It was at this critical juncture of affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case of the failure of the larger scheme. The union of the provinces had been discussed more than once in the legislatures of British North America since the appearance of Lord Durham's report, in which it was urged with great force that "it would enable the provinces to co-operate for all common purposes, and above all, it would form a great and powerful people, possessing the means of securing good and responsible government for itself, and which, under the protection of the British Empire, might, in some measure, counterbalance the preponderant and increasing influence of the United States on the American continent." Lord Durham even went so far as to recommend that the "bill should contain provisions by which any or all of the other North American colonies may, on the application of the legislature, be, with the consent of the two Canadas or their united legislature, admitted into the union on such terms

Sir J. A. Macdonald, Conf. Deb., 26-27. "The opposition and government leaders arranged a larger and a smaller scheme; if the larger failed, then they were to fall back upon the minor, which provided for a federation of the two sections of the province." Sir E. P. Taché, Ib. 9.

as may be agreed on between them." The expediency of a union was made a part of the programme of the Cartier-Macdonald government in 1858, and expressly referred to in the governor's speech at the close of the session; but no practical result was ever reached until the political necessities of the provinces forced them to take up the question and bring it to a satisfactory issue. It was a happy coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were about considering a maritime union. at the time the leading statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the decision to consider the question of the larger union at Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates from all the British North American provinces assembled in conference, in "the ancient capital," and after very ample deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to seventy-two resolutions, which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in January, 1865,

3

1 Rep. pp. 116-21. He preferred a legislative union.

2 Conf. Deb., Sir G. E. Cartier, p. 53; Ass. J. (1858) 1043. See also Mr. Brown's speech (pp. 110-24), in which he claimed that the essence of the federation measure was found in the "joint authority" resolutions of the Reform Convention of 1859.

For historical accounts of initiation of confederation see Doutre, Constitution of Canada, 15; Gray, Confederation of Canada, vol. i.; Turcotte II., 518-59; Confederation Debates, 1865, especially speeches of Sir E. P. Taché, Sir J. A. Macdonald, Sir G. E. Cartier, Hon. Geo. Brown, and Sir A. Campbell. Canada