^{page 197 note 1} Toronto Globe, June 3, 1882.

^{page 198 note 2} Ibid., May 1, 1882, editorial.

^{page 199 note 3} Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, 05 6, 1882, pp. 1330–2.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 4} Ibid., May 8, 1882, p. 1390.

^{page 201 note 5} Conservative candidate in 1878 and 1882.

^{page 201 note 6} Public Archives of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald Papers, 1882, Miscellaneous, part 1, p. 76.

^{page 201 note 7} Ibid., p. 89.

^{page 201 note 8} Ibid., p. 95.

^{page 201 note 9} Ibid., p. 98.

^{page 201 note 10} SirRoss, George W., Getting into Parliament, and After (Toronto, 1913), p. 121.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 11} Macdonald Papers, 1882, Miscellaneous, part 1, p. 116. He did run, however, and was elected.

^{page 202 note 12} Ibid., pp. 105-6.

^{page 202 note 13} Ibid., p. 101. These protests were heeded.

^{page 202 note 14} Ibid., p. 80.

^{page 202 note 15} Ibid., p. 90.

^{page 202 note 16} The Liberal member.

^{page 202 note 17} This is somewhat optimistic. As the vote went in 1882, Charlton would have been elected in the district thus constituted by a majority of 346.

^{page 203 note 18} Ibid., p. 82.

^{page 203 note 19} Toronto Globe, June 3, 1872.

^{page 203 note 20} Ottawa Times, June 3, 1872.

^{page 203 note 21} Toronto Globe, June 3, 1872.

^{page 204 note 22} Ibid., May 1, 1882.

^{page 204 note 23} See map and Appendix A for detailed account of these changes.

^{page 205 note 24} Hereafter majorities will be given in this shortened form: 156 L. being a Liberal majority of 156.

^{page 206 note 25} Cf. supra, pp. 200-1.

^{page 206 note 26} Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, April 28, 1882, p. 1209. This argument was repeated by the Conservatives in the country (Toronto Mail, April 29, May 5, 11, 1882, editorials; Montreal Gazelle, May 1, 1882, editorial; Facts for the Electors, A Record of the Conservative Administration 1878-1882, Claims of the Government for the Support of the People, 1882, p. 31 Google Scholar).

^{page 206 note 27} Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, 05 8, 1882, pp. 1395–6.Google Scholar The Bill was defeated in the Senate.

^{page 207 note 28} Ibid., April 28, 1882, pp. 1208-10; May 8, 1882, pp. 1388-9; May 11, 1882, pp. 1451-2; Toronto Mail, May 3, 6,1882, editorials; Montreal Gazette, May 9, 11, 15, 1882, editorials; Toronto Globe, May 5, June 6, 1882, editorials.

^{page 207 note 29} Quoted fully in Toronto Globe, May 8, 1882.

^{page 207 note 30} Montreal Gazette, May 1, 1882, editorial.

^{page 207 note 31} Ibid., May 15, 1882, editorial.

^{page 207 note 32} Toronto Mail, May 3, 1882, editorial.

^{page 207 note 33} Ibid., May 4, 1882, editorial.

^{page 208 note 34} Median rather than arithmetic averages have been used for greater accuracy, as they do not allow an exceptionally high or low number to distort the result.

^{page 208 note 35} The boundaries of the districts are found in Consolidated Statutes (Canada), 1859; British North America Act, First Schedule; Representation Acts, 1872 and 1882. Election returns are found chiefly in Canada Sessional Papers, 1879, no. 88, and 1883, no. 77.

^{page 210 note 36} The above is taken from the detailed analysis in Appendix B.

^{page 211 note 37} 23 + 19 + 4 additional seats = 46 (32 + 14).

^{page 211 note 38} See Appendix B for the results of the election of 1882.

^{page 212 note 39} SirCartwright, J., Reminiscences (Toronto, 1912), p. 233.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 40} Skelton, O. D., The Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Toronto, 1921), vol. I, pp. 258–9.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 41} Ross, , Getting into Parliament, and After, p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 42} Except for Niagara, there is not a single instance where the difference between the estimated and actual vote in a transferred town or township was sufficient to cause a change as a result of that difference.

^{page 213 note 43} One of these Liberal gains is not certain; for Niagara, excluding Lincoln, gave a Liberal majority of 14 in 1882. What might have happened had Lincoln and Niagara not been joined is entirely a matter of conjecture; for in that event, there would have been 1 less seat to create either by division or for “hiving”. No one can say which would have been sacrificed. The answer to this insoluble problem would decide whether the union of Niagara with Lincoln meant a loss to the Liberals in 1882 or not.

^{page 213 note 44} No mention is made here of subsequent elections held under the Act of 1882. The Liberals have always stated that the gerrymander of 1882 did them even more harm in these later elections than in 1882.

^{page 213 note 45} Two districts not counted: 1 had an acclamation, the other had 3 candidates in 1878.

^{page 213 note 46} Five districts not counted: 4 seats had 3 candidates or an acclamation in 1878 or 1882; 1 showed neither gain nor loss.

^{page 214 note 47} The Liberal gains in ungerrymandered seats were 25 per cent, over the number held in 1878, while in the gerrymandered seats their gains were 100 per cent, over the estimate based on previous elections.

^{page 216 note 1} Majorities are all given in this shortened form.

^{page 217 note 2} No other township from Haldimand could have been used, for the two others adjoining were North Cayuga and Senaca, with Liberal majorities of 166 and 162.