By the Constitution of 1840 the legislative power was divided between two chambers:  a council, consisting of twenty persons, who were nominated by the Governor, and held their seats for life; and a House of Assembly, whose eighty-four members were elected in equal proportions from the two sections of the province.  As the population of the Colony grew—­and between 1840 and 1853 it nearly doubled itself—­it was natural that the number of legislators should be increased; and there were other reasons which made an increase desirable.

[Sidenote:  Increase of representation.]

The Legislative Assembly (wrote Lord Elgin early in 1853) is now engaged on a measure introduced by the Government for increasing the representation of the province.  I consider the object of the measure a very important one; for, with so small a body as eighty members, when parties are nearly balanced, individual votes become too precious, which leads to mischief.  I have not experienced this evil to any great extent since I have had a liberal administration, which has always been strong in the Assembly; but, with my first administration, I felt it severely.

To this change no serious opposition was offered, either in the Colony or in the Imperial Parliament; and the members of the two Houses were raised to one hundred and thirty, and seventy-two, respectively.  It was otherwise, however, with the proposal to make the Upper House elective; a measure certainly alien to English ideas, but one which Lord Elgin appears to have thought necessary for the healthy working of the constitution under the circumstances then existing in the province.  As early as March, 1850, he wrote to Lord Grey:—­

[Sidenote:  Proposal to make the Upper House elective.]

[Sidenote:  Reasons in favour.]

A great deal is said here at present about rendering our second branch of the Legislature elective.  As the advocates of the plan, however, comprise two classes of persons, with views not only distinct but contradictory, it is difficult to foresee how they are to agree on details, when it assumes a practical shape.  The one class desire to construct a more efficient Conservative body than the present Council, the other seek an instrument to aid them in their schemes of subversion and pillage.  For my own part, I believe that a second legislative body, returned by the same constituency as the House of Assembly, under some differences with respect to time and mode of election, would be a greater check on ill-considered legislation than the Council as it is now constituted.  Baldwin is very unwilling to move in this matter.  Having got what he imagines to be the likest thing to the British constitution he can obtain, he is satisfied, and averse to further change.  In this instance I cannot but think that he mistakes the shadow for the substance.  I admire, however, the perseverance with which he proclaims, ’Il faut jeter l’ancre