revived the memory of
the regrettable incident of 1858 when the Queen had, by request,
selected Ottawa as the Canadian capital and her decision had been
condemned by a vote of the legislature. The press had discussed a
suitable name long before the London delegates assembled. Some
favoured New Britain, while others preferred Laurentia or Britannia.
If the maritime union had been effected, the name of that division
would probably have been Acadia, and this name was suggested for the
larger union. Other ideas were merely fantastic, such as Cabotia,
Columbia, Canadia, and Ursalia. The decision that Canada should give
up its name {128} to the new Confederation and that Upper and Lower
Canada should find new names for themselves was undoubtedly a happy
conclusion to the discussion. It was desired to call the Confederation
the Kingdom of Canada, and thus fix the monarchical basis of the
constitution. The French were especially attached to this idea. The
word Kingdom appeared in an early draft of the bill as it came from the
conference. But it was vetoed by the foreign secretary, Lord
Stanley,[1] who thought that the republican sensibilities of the United
States would be wounded. This preposterous notion serves to indicate
the inability of the controlling minds of the period to grasp the true
nature of the change. Finally, the word 'Dominion' was decided upon.
Why a term was selected which is so difficult to render in the French
language (_La Puissance_ is the translation employed) is not easy of
comprehension. There is a story, probably invented, that when
'Dominion' was under consideration, a member of the conference, well
versed in the Scriptures, found a verse which, as a piece of
descriptive prophecy, at once clinched the matter: 'And his dominion
shall be from {129} sea even to sea, and from the river even to the
ends of the earth.'[2]

The knotty question of the second chamber, supposed to have been solved
at Quebec, came up again. The notes of the discussion[3] are as
interesting as the surviving notes of the Quebec Conference. Some of
the difficulties since experienced were foreseen. But no one appears
to have realized that the Senate would become the citadel of a defeated
party, until sufficient vacancies by death should occur to transform it
into the obedient instrument of the government of the day. No one
foresaw, in truth, that the Senate would consider measures chiefly on
party grounds, and would