question, it is only necessary to carry the comparison one step further, and point out that, as in the United Kingdom, so here, the ultimate responsibility of the executive to the electorate, through the elective branch of the legislature, is clearly established, in relation as well to each provincial as to the Dominion government. The elective branch of the legislature (Dominion Parliament or Provincial Legislative Assembly) represents, and is directly responsible to, the electorate-as in the United Kingdom. The Executive Committee (the cabinet) composed of members of the legislature, holding their positions by virtue of, and contingently upon, the retention of the confidence of the elective branch of that Legislature, are therefore, practically directly responsible to that elective branch-as in the United Kingdom. The same chain of connected relation, the same source of motive power, and the same method of applying that power to the work of government, exists in each of our governmental bodies, as in the United Kingdom.

In this view of the Canadian constitution, the extent to which the executive department of the Dominion government may exercise, over Acts of the provincial legislative assembly, the power of disallowance, will appear quite immaterial when it is borne in mind that this power is, in any given case, exercised under the same responsibility (directly to the Dominion parliament, and indirectly, through the elective branch of that parliament, to the electorate) as exists in relation to the exercise of any other executive power lodged in the hands of the Dominion government. And so as to any other points of contact, or even conflict, between the Dominion and Provincial governments—or, for that matter, between two local governments --for its conduct with regard to such matter of contact or conflict, for its action or inaction, each government (executive and legislative department alike) is responsible ultimately to the electorate, who condemn or approve in the very same way and with like results as in the case, for

example, of a conflict between Lords and Commons in the United Kingdom.

Nor would it make the slightest difference, if (as was held in certain quarters, for some years after 1867,) concurrent power over many subject matters were, by the B. N. A. Act, allotted to both the Dominion and Provincial governments, and if the true construction of that Act were, to subordinate provincial legislation upon such matters, to Dominion legislation thereon. Colonial legislation is completely subordinate to Imperial, and to the extent of its repugnancy" to such Imperial legislation, is utterly void; and yet no one, we fancy, would contend that, by reason of such subordination, the constitutions of the pre-Confederation provinces, for example, were other than constitutions similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. The sphere of their power of government was limited by reason of their colonial status, but so far as they had power, that power was exercised through the same medium of responsible parliamentary government. And so now, under the B. N. A. Act, each government, Dominion or Provincial, has limitations set to its sphere of operation, but each, within its sphere, is a responsible parliamentary govern

ment.

CHAPTER II.

THE PRE-CONFEDERATION CONSTITUTIONS.

To properly appreciate the merits or accurately note the defects of any form of government, it must be studied in its actual present working-examined, so to speak, in motion -and if the B. N. A. Act were the creation of a governmental organism, new in all its parts, we might lack justification for indulging in historical retrospect back of 1867. But, just because the slate was not cleaned, just because many parts of the machinery of government existing in the provinces prior to Confederation were continued in the new plant set up in the various provinces, it will be necessary to examine the earlier constitutions of those provinces. Indeed, it will appear that in at least two of them, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (a), the governmental machinery was left by the B. N. A. Act almost intact, and new plant was provided only for the Dominion government and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec (b). These reasons,. here urged in brief, will develop themselves more at length as we progress in our examination of the scheme of government contained in the B. N. A. Act. To avoid undue repetition, the proof must be somewhat delayed. In any case, a short historial retrospect would probably not be considered out of order.

(a) The same remark applies to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island upon their admission to the Dominion.

(b) And afterwards for Manitoba and the North West Territories.

With the view, then, to determine the nature of the constitution of government in the various provinces of which the Dominion is composed, we proceed to discuss briefly, and so far only as is necessary to a proper appreciation of our present system, the constitutional history of those provinces.

TO NOVA SCOTIA belongs the distinction of being the oldest of the B. N. A. colonies now forming part of the Dominion. The preamble to one of the earliest Acts (c) of the Nova Scotia Assembly (1759), declares that "this province of Nova Scotia, or Acadie, and the property thereof, did always of right belong to the Crown of England, both by priority of discovery and ancient possession." The correctness of this declaration, France would probably not admit; but the contest would be of antiquarian interest merely, for by the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, "Nova Scotia, or Acadie, with its ancient boundaries," was ceded by France to the Crown of England in the most ample terms of renunciation. Nova Scotia, as thus ceded, included the present provinces of Nova Scotia (excluding Cape Breton) and New Brunswick, and also part of Maine. For many years after its acquisition, Nova Scotia was practically under the military rule of a governor and council, whose authority was defined in the governor's commission. In 1749, a colonization scheme was set on foot, and anticipating an influx of settlers into the colony, the commission to Governor Cornwallis, of date 1749, authorized the summoning of "general assemblys of the free-holders and planters within your government, according to the usage of the rest of our colonies and plantations in America." After much delay, and the exhibition of much unwillingness on the part of the governor and his council to act upon this direction, a scheme of representation was settled, and the first parliament of Nova Scotia met on the second of October, 1758, at Halifax.

(e) 33 Geo. II. c. 3 (N. S.).

In 1763, the remaining portions of what are now known as the Maritime Provinces-Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island-were, by the treaty of Paris, ceded to Great Britain : and, by the proclamation which followed, were annexed "to our government of Nova Scotia."

Six years later, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND was made a separate province, under a governor of its own, whose commission, also, authorized the calling together of "general assemblys of the free-holders and planters, within your government, in such manner as you in your discretion shall judge most proper," and according to further instructions. The first parliament of Prince Edward Island met in 1773.

In 1784, NEW BRUNSWICK was made a separate province, with a governor of its own: and his commission, too, authorized, in somewhat similar phraseology, the summoning of a general assembly, which shortly thereafter met.

Of CAPE BRETON'S constitutional vicissitudes it is unnecessary to make mention (). Finally, in 1820, it was re-annexed to the government of Nova Scotia, of which province it has ever since formed, and now forms, part.

So far as the Maritime Provinces (e) are concerned, the legislatures of to-day, in those provinces, are the lincal descendants of those early "general assemblys." But, as we must show, the sphere of their authority in government, in 1867, when Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (ƒ) became part of the Dominion of Canada, was very different from their sphere of authority in 1758, and for many years thereafter.

QUEBEC not the present province of that name, but practically the now provinces of Quebec and Ontario-was

(d) They are set out at length in 5 Moo. P. C. 259: In re The Island of Cape Breton.

(e) The documents relating to the early constitutions of the Maritime Provinces are set out in Return No. 70, Can. Sess. Papers, 1883.

(f) And so as to Prince Edward Island in 1873. See post.