While the Hincks government was in office, the Canadian legislature received power from the imperial authorities—­as I shall show later—­to settle the question of the clergy reserves on condition that protection should be given to those members of the clergy who had been beneficiaries under the Constitutional Act of 1791.  A measure was passed for the settlement of the seigniorial tenure question on an equitable basis, but it was defeated in the legislative council by a large majority amongst which we see the names of several seigneurs directly interested in the measure.  It was not fully discussed in that chamber on the ground that members from Upper Canada had not had a sufficient opportunity of studying the details of the proposed settlement and of coming to a just conclusion as to its merits.  The action of the council under these circumstances was severely criticized, and gave a stimulus to the movement that had been steadily going on for years among radical reformers of both provinces in favour of an elective body.

The result was that in 1854 the British parliament repealed the clauses of the Union Act of 1840 with respect to the upper House, and gave full power to the Canadian legislature to make such changes as it might deem expedient—­another concession to the principle of local self-government.  It was not, however, until 1856, that the legislature passed a bill giving effect to the intentions of the imperial law, and the first elections were held for the council.  Lord Elgin was always favourable to this constitutional change.  “The position of the second chamber of our body politic”—­I quote from a despatch of March, 1853—­“is at present wholly unsatisfactory.  The principle of election must be introduced in order to give to it the influence which it ought to possess, and that principle must be so applied as to admit of the working of parliamentary government (which I for one am certainly not prepared to abandon for the American system) with two elective chambers...  When our two legislative bodies shall have been placed on this improved footing, a greater stability will have been imparted to our constitution, and a greater strength.”  Lord Elgin’s view was adopted and the change was made.

It is interesting to note that so distinguished a statesman as Lord Derby, who had been colonial secretary in a previous administration, had only gloomy forebodings of the effects of this elective system applied to the upper House.  He believed that the dream that he had of seeing the colonies form eventually “a monarchical government, presided over by one nearly and closely allied to the present royal family,” would be proved quite illusory by the legislation in question.  “Nothing,” he added, “like a free and regulated monarchy could exist for a single moment under such a constitution as that which is now proposed for Canada.  From the moment that you pass this constitution, the progress must be rapidly towards republicanism, if anything could be more really