588 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III
Dominion it was agreed that it should not be perpetuated,
and the Upper House was accordingly made a nominee body.
As a nominee body it has failed, as every Upper House in
North America has failed, to command the respect of the
people! Certain differences of opinion arose between the
two Houses when Sir John Macdonald’s Ministry went out
of office in 1873, and the Liberal Opposition came into
power with only seven members, of whom three were
doubtful, in the Senate ; for example, the two Houses took
different views as to the conduct of Mr. Luc Letellier de
St. Just, the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, in 1878, and
the proposal for the building of the Esquimalt-Nanaimo
Railway.2 Harmony was restored by the recovery of power
by Sir John Macdonald in 1878, and the amicable relations
of the two Houses were not disturbed until the defeat of
Macdonald’s successor in 1896, when the strong disparity
between the two Houses became obvious, the Senate con-
sisting almost entirely of members nominated? at one time
or another by Sir John Macdonald, as was inevitable in view
of the facts that he had twice held office and that senators
were nominated for life. In 1897 and 1898 there was some
friction ; several Bills were altered against the wish of the
Lower House, the Bills for an extension of the intercolonial
railway to Montreal and for a railway to the Klondike were
rejected * and a redistribution measure was blocked. Pro-
posals for reconstructing the Upper House on an elective
basis have been aired from time to time, and the former
Secretary of State for the Dominion, Sir Richard Scott, on
going out of ministerial office introduced a Bill into the
Senate to secure its reform.> No serious step, however,
t Goldwin Smith, Canada, pp. 163 seq.
! Canada Sess. Pap., 1876, No. 41, p. 2.
* On strictly party lines: Sir J. Macdonald only once, it is said. nominated
a Liberal, and Sir W. Laurier never a Conservative.
* See Senate Debates, 1897, pp. 735 seq. ; 1898, pp. 280 seq.
* See a summary of the 1908 debates in Canadian Annual Review, 1908,
pp. 34-6 ; House of Commons Debates, 1909, p. 1473. It was discussed at
great length again in 1910, see Debates, 1909-10, pp. 2040 seq., and in 1911,
Debates 1910-1, pp. 2738 seq. ; Review, 1910, pp. 255, 256.
