1 Cook, Ramsay, Provincial Autonomy, Minority Rights and the Compact Theory, 1867–1921 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969).Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 29–32, 51–69.

3 McL. Rogers, N., “The Compact Theory of Confederation,” Papers and Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association 3 (1931), 205–230Google Scholar, and see the works cited in Gerin-Lajoie, Paul, Constitutional Amendment in Canada, Canadian Government Series (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950), 205–206.Google Scholar

4 Quebec, Royal Commission on Constitutional Problems, Report, Vol. 2 (Quebec: Province of Quebec, 1956), 65.Google Scholar

5 Norman McL. Rogers, “Mr. Ferguson and the Constitution,” Canadian Forum, November 1930, 49; and Scott, Frank R., Essays on the Constitution: Aspects of Canadian Law and Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 186, 204, 305–09.Google Scholar

6 Arès, Richard, Dossier sur le Pacte fédératif de 1867: la Confédération—pacte ou loi? (Montreal: Les Editions Bellarmin, 1967).Google Scholar

7 Quoted in Smiley, Donald, The Canadian Political Nationality (Toronto: Methuen, 1967), 29Google Scholar. See also Barbeau, Raymond, J'ai choisi l'Indépendance (Montreal: Éditions de l'homme, 1961), 81–82.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, Morton, W. L., “Confederation, 1870–1896: The End of the Macdonaldian Constitution and the Return to Duality,” Journal of Canadian Studies 1 (1966), 11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heintzman, Ralph, “‘The Spirit of Confederation’: Professor Creighton, Biculturalism, and the Use of History,” Canadian Historical Review 52 (1971), 245–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Creighton, Donald, Towards the Discovery of Canada: Selected Essays (Toronto: Macmillan, 1972), 65–83, 229–42, 256–70, 293–305Google Scholar. See, generally, McRoberts, Kenneth, Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997), 31–54.Google Scholar

9 Vipond, Robert C., “Whatever Became of the Compact Theory? Meech Lake and the New Politics of Constitutional Amendment in Canada,” Queen's Quarterly 96(1988–1989), 793–811.Google Scholar

10 Laurent, Louis St., “Presidential Address,” Canadian Bar Review 9 (1931), 529–534Google Scholar; and Gérin-Lajoie, Constitutional Amendment in Canada, 153–84.

11 Careless, J. M. S., Brown of the Globe, Vol. 2 (Toronto: Macmillan, 1963), 129–146.Google Scholar

12 Stanley, George F. G., “Act or Pact? Another Look at Confederation,” Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report (1956), 1–25.Google Scholar

13 Ouellet, Femand, Lower Canada, 1791–1840: Social Change and Nationalism (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1980), 201–207.Google Scholar

14 Canada, Bureau of Archives, Report on Canadian Archives (1897), Note A, 24–27; and Kennedy, W. P. M., ed., Documents of the Canadian Constitution, 1759–1915 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1918), 332–333Google Scholar. See also no. 53 of the Ninety-Two Resolutions of 1834 (ibid., 378).

15 Quoted in Laforest, Guy, Trudeau and the End of a Canadian Dream (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995), 46.Google Scholar

16 S. 91, Preamble, British North America Act. Romney, Paul, “The Nature and Scope of Provincial Autonomy: Oliver Mowat, the Quebec Resolutions and the Construction of the British North America Act,” this Journal 25 (1992), 21–23.Google Scholar

17 Loranger, T. J. J., Letters upon the Interpretation of the Federal Constitution Known as the British North America Act, 1867. First Letter (Quebec: “Morning Chronicle” Office, 1884), iii–vii, 40–41.Google Scholar

18 Romney, Paul, Mr. Attorney: The Attorney General for Ontario in Court, Cabinet and Legislature, 1791–1899 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), 252–254.Google Scholar

19 Gourlay, Robert, A Statistical Account of Upper Canada, Vol. 1 (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1822), 189Google Scholar. On Bidwell and his authorship of the Sketches, see Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 6, 54–59.Google Scholar

20 Kingston Chronicle, March 7 and 14, 1823.

21 Doughty, Arthur G. and Storey, Norah, eds., Documents Relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1819–1828 (Ottawa: J. O. Patenaude, 1935), 479Google Scholar. The word “fact” is missing in one place in this transcription but appears in the original document.

22 McRae, K. D., “An Upper Canada Letter on Responsible Government,” Canadian Historical Review 31 (1950), 293–294 (emphasis in original)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. By “coordinate sovereignty,” I mean that sovereignty, and hence legislative authority, within the British empire was held to be divided between the British Parliament and the colonial legislatures, rather than concentrated in the former. Accordingly, the British Parliament could legislate for a colony without its consent only on matters vital to the integrity and security of the empire, usually trade, navigation and defence.

23 Ibid., 290; Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 6, 57; and Morton, W. L., “The Colonial Executive in the British Empire, 1763–1828,” English Historical Review 78 (1963), 456.Google Scholar

24 See Greene, Jack P., “From the Perspective of Law: Context and Legitimacy in the Origins of the American Revolution,” South Atlantic Quarterly 85 (1986), 55–76.Google Scholar

25 Globe (Toronto), September 25, 1844; and see Romney, “Nature and Scope of Provincial Autonomy,” 10–11.

26 Vipond, Robert C., Liberty and Community: Canadian Federalism and the Failure of the Constitution (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 23Google Scholar. The distinction between law and convention was classically expressed by Dicey, A. V. (Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution [8th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1927], 22–30, 413–34).Google Scholar

27 Globe, September 17, 1864. In the past, I have doubted Robert Vipond's contention that Brown remained true in 1864 to his party's traditional insistence on autonomy for Upper Canada (Vipond, Liberty and Community, 20–21; and Romney, “Nature and Scope of Provincial Autonomy,” 8). This, and similar declarations in the Globe, constitute strong evidence in Vipond's favour.

28 Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1865), 42Google Scholar; and Globe, January 21, 1882, 5; compare the quotation in n. 30 below. Mowat maintained that it was well understood at Quebec that the federal veto should be subject to the same constitutional constraints as the imperial (Globe, March 9, 1888). On Reform ideology and other relevant points, see Romney, Paul, Getting It Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 McRae, “Upper Canada Letter,” 294.

30 “The provinces party to the bargain were at the time of the compact independent nations in the sense that they enjoyed self-government subject to the Imperial veto upon their legislation, to the Imperial appointment of their Governor-General, and to the Queen's command of the Forces” (Globe, March 9, 1888, quoted in Cook, Provincial Autonomy, 43).

31 Arès, Dossier sur le Pacte fédératif, 17–45. On Gwynne, see Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 13, 426–29.

32 Rogers, “Compact Theory of Confederation,” 208–21; and Canada, Senate, Report Pursuant to Resolution of the Senate … Relating to the Enactment of the British North America Act, 1867 (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1939), annex 4, 22–152.Google Scholar

33 Donald Creighton, the pre-eminent historian of his generation, simply assumed without documentation that the Fathers of Confederation had taken the old colonial system as their model (Dominion of the North: A History of Canada [rev. ed.; Toronto: Macmillan, 1957], 306–307)Google Scholar. The Globe editorial quoted above defeats this supposition.

34 Romney, Paul, “Why Lord Watson Was Right,” in Ajzenstat, Janet, ed., Canadian Constitutionalism, 1791–1991 (Ottawa: Canadian Study of Parliament Group, 1993), 187–189Google Scholar. I pursue this argument in Ajzenstat, Janet, Romney, Paul and Gentles, Ian, ed., Canada's Founding Debates (Toronto: Stoddart, forthcoming).Google Scholar

35 Report Pursuant, annex 2, 38–39, 100.

36 On the new liberalism and its Canadian manifestations, see Ferguson, Barry, Remaking Liberalism: The Intellectual Legacy of Adam Shorn, O. D. Skelton, W. C. Clark, and W. A. Mackintosh, 1890–1925 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Owram, Doug, The Government Generation: Canadian Intellectuals and the State, 1900–1945 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986).Google Scholar

37 Vipond, Liberty and Community, 131–39. See also Gordon, Robert, “Legal Thought and Legal Practice in the Age of American Enterprise,” in Geison, Gerald L., ed., Professions and Professional Ideologies in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 70–110, 127–39Google Scholar; Sugarman, David, “The Legal Boundaries of Liberty: Dicey, Liberalism, and Legal Science,” Modern Law Review 46 (1983), 102–111Google Scholar; and Risk, Richard, “The Scholars and the Constitution: P.O.G.G. and the Privy Council,” Manitoba Law Journal 23 (1995–1996), 496–523.Google Scholar

38 On legal realism, see Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

39 Dawson, Robert MacGregor, ed., Constitutional Issues in Canada, 1900–1931 (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 33.Google Scholar

40 Cook, Provincial Autonomy, 10–11.

41 For this and the next paragraph, see, for example, Rogers, “Compact Theory of Confederation,” 221–25.

42 Cook, Provincial Autonomy, 43.

43 SirRoss, George, The Senate of Canada: Its Constitution, Powers and Duties Historically Considered (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1914), 109–119.Google Scholar

44 Vipond, Liberty and Community, 30–32.