594 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [parr 111 
down to the date on which Nova Scotia entered the Union 
was there any provision that councillors should hold for 
life ; on the contrary, it was expressly provided that all 
members shall hold their places in the said Council during 
pleasure, provided always that the total number of the 
Council for the time being resident in the province should 
not at any time, by provisional appointments by the 
Governor, which was a normal way of making appointments, 
be raised to a greater number than twenty-one. Full power 
was given to the Governor to remove or suspend any officers, 
but no conditions of removal or suspension were specified, 
and a special provision was made that councillors absenting 
themselves above the space of six months without leave 
from the Lieutenant-Governor, or a year without leave from 
the Crown, should cease to be members. In 1883 the 
Legislative Council of Nova Scotia had to consider the 
position of a member who had become a bankrupt. A 
committee investigated the facts and reported in favour, 
if possible, of the removal of the member in question. 
Counsel were asked to advise, and they held that all 
appointments were during pleasure and that officers could 
be dismissed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Macdonald 
resigned in consequence of Lieutenant-Governor Archibald 
calling his attention to the matter in accordance with the 
precedent set in 1861, when Lord Stanley authorized Lord 
Falkland to call upon a certain member of the Council to 
resign on the ground of bankruptcy. 
It is clear that previous to 1867 the Legislative Council 
was not, as has been repeatedly stated, really limited in 
number to twenty-one. It was precisely in the same 
position as the Legislative Council of Newfoundland; that is 
to say, the Crown could add as many members as it desired, 
but the Governor could not, so that any swamping would 
require the sanction of the Crown and its direct action by the 
appointment of fresh members by warrants. Moreover, it 
is perfectly clear, though Bourinot suggests otherwise, that 
the members held technically during pleasure, though 
equally it was obviously the intention that they should not