limitation; viz., that there should never be more than one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants. After the census of 1790 the first Congressional apportionment took place. The number of representatives was increased to 106, which, divided among the aggregate population, gave one representative for every 33,000. After the census of 1810 the number of representatives was raised to 183, which, divided among the population, gave one for every 35,000. In 1820 the number of representatives was was brought up to 213, which gave one to every 40,000. In 1830 the representatives were increased to 242, or one for every 47,700. In 1840 the representatives were reduced to 223, or one for every 70,680. In 1850 the representatives were increased to 233, or one for every 93,000. (Sheppard's Constitutional Text Book, 1863.) In the latest Apportionment Act, based on the census of 1890, the number of representatives was fixed at 357, which gave one representative to every 173,900. (Statesman's Year Book, 1899, p. 1130.) So, as the population went on increasing, the number of members to divide among the population has from time to time increased. The increase of members, however, does not proceed in proportion to the increase of the population. The proportion of representatives to population has been gradually diminished, from one representative for every quota of 30,000 in 1789, to one representative for every quota of 173,900 in 1890.

The British North America Act, 1867, sec. 37, provided that the Dominion House of Commons should at first consist of 181 members, of whom 82 were assigned to Ontario, 65 to Quebec, 19 to Nova Scotia, and 15 to New Brunswick. By sec. 52 of the same Act power was given to the Parliament of Canada to increase the number of the members of the House of Commons, subject, however, to the condition that the proportionate representation prescribed by the Act should not be thereby disturbed. The basis for re-adjustment after each decennial census is that Quebec shall always have the fixed number of 65 members, and that each of the other Provinces shall be assigned the number of members which bears the same proportion to its population as the number 65 bears to the population of Quebec—a fractional part exceeding half a quota being regarded as a whole quota. (See p. 445, supra.)

On the basis of the census of the Dominion taken in April, 1891, and in accordance with a redistribution bill passed in 1892, the House of Commons consists of 213 members -92 for Ontario, 65 for Quebec, 20 for Nova Scotia, 14 for New Brunswick, 7 for Manitoba, 6 for British Columbia, 5 for Prince Edward Island, and 4 for the NorthWest Territories. The ratio of members to population is now one to 22,688. (Statesman's Year Book, 1899, p. 221.)

In the Draft Bill of 1891 it was provided (as in the Constitution of the United States) that there should be one representative for every 30,000 of the population of the Commonwealth, but that this quota should be alterable by the Federal Parliament; there was no provision made for any maximum number of members. As the population increased, the representation could be increased by an additional member for every 30,000.

It has been estimated that, if the Commonwealth had been established in 1897 and the House of representatives constituted on the basis of one member for every 50,000 of the population, that House would have consisted of about 71 members, of which New South Wales would have had 26, Victoria 24, Queensland 9, South Australia 7, Tasmania 3, Western Australia 2. In 1901, on the assumption that the past rates of increase of population continued, New South Wales would have 32, Victoria 27, Queensland 13, South Australia 9, Western Australia 4, and Tasmania 3. total 88. According to the same average of increase the House of Representatives would, by the year 1941, have a total of 446 members. (Mr. R. E. O'Connor, Conv. Deb., Adel., 1897, p. 685.)

This Constitution places no limit on the power of the Parliament to increase the size of the House of Representatives, except that the Senate must be increased in the same proportion, so as to preserve the "two to one ratio." It, however, effectually prevents any such rapid automatic increase as is foreshadowed in the calculations above

referred to. The number of representatives depends upon the number of senators, and the number of senators does not increase automatically at all. The number of senators may, however, be increased in two ways-either by increasing the number of senators for each State or by increasing the number of States.

The Parliament may increase or diminish the number of senators for each State, provided that equal representation of the original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators (sec. 7). The number of senators may also be increased by the admission or establishment of new States (sec. 121). There are thus two methods by which the number of senators may be increased; (1) by an Act of the Federal Parliament increasing the number of senators for each existing State, and (2) by an Act of the Federal Parliament, admitting or establishing a new State or States and thus introducing additional senators. Accordingly, though apparently the number of representatives is determined by the number of Senators, yet the fact that the number of senators may be increased to any extent by the Parliament makes the number of the House of Representatives equally elastic (see Note, § 116, infra).

This "two to one ratio" is a rigid element and basic requirement of much importance and significance; it is embedded in the Constitution; it is beyond the reach of modification by the Federal Parliament, and can only be altered by an amendment of the Constitution. It was adopted after due consideration and for weighty reasons. It was considered that, as it was desirable, in a Constitution of this kind, to define and fix the relative powers of the two Houses, it was also but fair and reasonable to define their relative proportions, in numerical strength, to each other, so as to give that protection and vital force by which the proper exercise of those powers could be legally secured. It was considered extremely necessary to prevent an automatic or arbitrary increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives, by which there would be a continually growing disparity between the number of members of that House and the Senate; and to give some security for maintaining the numerical strength. as well as the Constitutional power, of the Senate. It was argued that if the number of the members of the Senate remained stationary, whilst the number of the members of the House of Representatives were allowed to go on increasing with the progressive increase of population, the House would become inordinately large and inordinately expensive, whilst the Senate would become weak and impotent. It was said that to allow the proportion of the Senate towards the House of Representatives to become the merest fraction, would in course of time lead practically to the abolition of the Senate, or at any rate, to the loss of that influence, prestige, and dignity to which it is entitled under the Constitution. In reply to the argument founded on the danger of disparity, arising between the number of members of the Senate and the number of members of the House of Representatives, attention was drawn to the Constitution of the United States of America. under which Congress had unlimited power to increase the number of members of the House, without increasing the number of senators; which power had not been recklessly or improvidently exercised. The power and status of the Senate had not been prejudiced by the gradual increase in the number of representatives. In answer to this, it was contended that the Senate of the United States of America had maintained its position in the Constitution largely owing to its possession of certain important judicial, legislative and executive powers, which had not been granted to the Senate of the Commonwealth, such as the sole power of trying cases of impeachment; the power to ratify or to refuse to ratify treaties made by the President with foreign nations; and the power to refuse to confirm executive appointments made by the President. These powers were the main sources of the strength of the American Senate, which prevented wide disparity in numbers between it and the House of Representatives from causing it to drift into the insignificance of a small committee or board. The Senate of the Commonwealth, being deprived of such powers, should be protected against the danger of disparity in numbers. As regards the necessity, which might hereafter arise, of increasing the number of representatives to meet the demands of an increased and

any

increasing population, it was not likely that the Senate would deny an increase in the House of Representatives when it secured an increase itself. (Conv. Deb., Adel., pp. 435-7, 683-98; Sydney, pp. 429-52.)

§ 107.

"In Proportion to the Respective Numbers of Their People.”

The number of members chosen by the people of the Commonwealth in the several States is to be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people. The words of the corresponding section in the Constitution of the United States of America (Art. I. sec. ii. sub-sec. 3), are, that representatives shall be apportioned among the several States of the Union "according to their respective numbers," provided that their representation should not be greater than the proportion of 1 to 30,000. In the Draft Bill of 1891, part III. sec. 24, it was proposed that representatives should be chosen by the people of the several States, "according to their respective numbers," provided that their representation should not be greater than 1 to 30,000. In the Constitution of the United States it was further provided that each State should have at least one representative; and, until the first enumeration was made, the number of members for each State was specified in the Constitution itself.

Every scheme of apportionment, founded on a fixed ratio, such as one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, was open to the objection that in almost every State there would probably be thousands of persons constituting a fraction of the given number, who would be absolutely unrepresented in the House. This was the actual experience of the United States of America. Accordingly, different methods of providing for and dealing with these fractions were suggested and tried. The first apportionment Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in 1790. It gave one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, and made no provision for the representation of the remaining fractions; thus a State containing a population of one million would be assigned 33 representatives, representing 990,000 in the million, leaving 10,000 unrepresented. The Senate amended the Bill by allowing additional representatives to the States having the largest fractions; the House concurred in the amendment, but the Bill was eventually vetoed by President Washington. (Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. V. pp. 320, 323; cited Foster's Comm. vol. I. pp. 394-7; Webster's Report of the Senate, 1832, cited Foster, pp. 436-8.)

Accordingly, the basis of apportionment in the United States ignored fractions altogether until 1842, when a new rule was adopted on the lines of Daniel Webster's Report to the Senate, made ten years previously. The new rule made the provision as to fractions which is adopted by this Constitution, and the purpose of which cannot be explained more clearly than in the words of Webster's Report :

"It may be clearly expressed in either of two ways. Let the rule be, that the whole number of the proposed House shall be apportioned among the several States, according to their respective numbers, giving to each State that number of members which comes nearest to her exact mathematical part, or proportion; or, let the rule be, that the population of each State shall be divided by a common divisor, and that, in addition to the number of members resulting from such division, a member shall be allowed to each State whose fraction exceeds a moiety of the divisor." (Webster's Report, cited Foster's Comm., vol. 1, p. 445.)

$108. "Until the Parliament Otherwise Provides...

These words empower the Parliament to alter the provisions of sub-sections 1 and 2, which deal with the manner of determining the number of members chosen in the several States. This power of alteration is, however, confined within very narrow limits by the permanent and absolute provisions of the section. The rules which are determined absolutely by the section, and which the Parliament has no power to alter, are:

(1.) That the whole number of members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators:

(2.) That the number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people :

(3.) That five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State.

The provisions for ascertaining the quota, and for dealing with the question of fractions, may only be altered subject to those absolute rules; so that the power of the Parliament to alter the basis of apportionment is very small.

$109. "Be Determined Whenever Necessary."

The Constitution does not expressly say by whom this determination is to be made. Whenever it is "necessary" to re-apportion the members, the only data needed are the "latest statistics of the Commonwealth," showing the population of the Commonwealth, and of each State. Given those figures, the rest is mere arithmetic; and according to the maxim-" Id certum est quod certum reddi potest"-the numbers are then already determined.

Parliamentary authority would, however, appear to be required for two purposes: (1) To provide for the preparation of the latest statistics, and to identify those statistics by law; and (2) to declare when re-apportionment is "necessary." As the statistics are at the root of the representative system, it is important that they should be clearly recognized and identified by Act of Parliament; and even when that has been done, it would be most undesirable that the Executive should be left to decide for itself whether re-apportionment were necessary.

The Constitution does not prescribe any regular interval for re-apportionment, nor does it require that re-apportionment should take place at every general election, if later statistics are available; it merely provides that apportionment shall be made "whenever necessary," and that when so made it shall be according to the latest statistics. The Parliament is apparently left to judge for itself when the necessity arises. The only reliable basis of population statistics is a census; and it may be presumed that the Parliament will provide for a periodical-probably a decennial—-census, and will require that after each census the number of members for each State shall be determined afresh. Such determination, when made, will of course not take effect till the next general election.

$ 110. "A Quota shall be Ascertained."

The quota is that number of the aggregate population of the Commonwealth which, considered as a unit, is entitled to one member in the House of Representatives. It is obtained by dividing the population of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators. The population is that shown in the latest statistics. The number resulting from the division, the quotient, is called the quota. This is the ratio of representation, there being one representative for every quota of the population of the Commonwealth. The method of obtaining the quota may be shown as follows:

:

Quota

It seems clear that strict accuracy requires that the quota should be calculated out to an exact decimal fraction. To neglect the fraction might, in occasional instances, just make the difference of a representative more or less. Thus, suppose that the exact quota were 50,000-4, and that the population of one of the States were 1,025,001. If the

quota were taken at its integral value, 50,000, the State would be entitled to 21 representatives-20 in respect of 1,000,000 inhabitants, and one more in respect of the remainder of 25,001, which is greater than one-half of the quota. But if the quota is taken at its exact value the remainder will only be 24,993, or less than one-half the quota, and the State will only be entitled to 20 representatives.

This method of ascertaining the quota may be altered by the Federal Parliament and another substituted. But the "two to one ratio," and the rule requiring the distribution of representatives chosen in the several States in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, cannot be interfered with except by an amendment of the constitution.

§ 111.

"Members to be Chosen in each State."

The quota being ascertained, it becomes a mere matter of arithmetic to determine the number of representatives to be chosen in each State. The quota, say fifty thousand, is divided among the population of the State as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth. The result of the division is the number of representatives to be chosen in the State--subject, however, to the provision that each State shall have at least five representatives, and subject also to the provision as to fractions.

§ 112. "A Remainder Greater than One-half of the Quota."

It is provided that if, in any such division of the quota among the population of the State, the remainder left is greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State. This expresses, in a legal form, what has been the recognized practice in the United States of America, of late years, of dealing with such fractions of a quota. (See Webster's Report on Apportionment; Foster's Comm. I. p. 434; and note, § 107, supra.) The Canadian Constitution contains a similar direction.

§ 113. "Five Members at Least."

With fifty thousand as the quota, Tasmania and Western Australia would be entitled to only two or three members each in the National Chamber. This was considered such an insignificant representation that provision was made that there should be a minimum number of five members in each State.

Provision as to Races disqualified from Voting.

25. For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

UNITED STATES.-When the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. -Amendment XIV.

HISTORICAL NOTE. --In the Commonwealth Bill of 1891, clause 26, Chap. I., was as

follows:-

"When in any State the people of any race are not entitled by law to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, the representa