Actually there were two that I found. The first united England and Scotland, the second, England and Ireland. Let's take a look at the circumstances that brought about these unions.

Throughout the 1600's there were plenty of occasions and plans for uniting England and Scotland. Each of these failed. The English point of view was that they had little to gain by uniting with Scotland. The Scots on the other hand did not want to become a "minor" partner to England.

It took a war with France (who else?) that caused the English to have a change of heart. Good ol' King Louis XIV recognized that a (God forbid) Catholic who went by the name of James VIII, 'the Young Pretender', as the rightful heir to both the English and Scottish thrones. This caused much consternation among the English. . By something called the Act of Settlement it was decided that if Queen Anne should die childless (her only son had died in 1701), then the crown would pass to Sophia of Hanover, a cousin of Charles I. The Scots refused to agree to this and passed a series of acts that were hostile to England. The most important of these was something called the Act of Security in which the Scottish Parliament would have the power to nominate a successor to Anne within 20 days of her death and that the successor did not necessarily have to be from the House of Hanover. This raised the possibility of a separate Scottish monarchy. The English were indeed, not very pleased with the situation. You see, Scottish soldiers were important in the army and the English were engaged in the War of Spanish Succession. Since Queen Anne did not immediately sign the Act of Security, the Scottish Parliament withheld the supply of Scottish soldiers until she backed down.

It's now 1704 and Scotland is heading more towards independence rather than union. Queen Anne and her cronies in the government were trying to bring the two countries closer together. In order to put pressure on the Scot, they passed something called the Alien Act of 1705. Basically, the Act gave the Scots until Christmas Day to either accept the Hanoverian succession or they were to appoint a commission to negotiate a union. Should they do neither, they would be treated as aliens in England. This meant that any property that was held by Scots in England would be threatened. Any trading arrangements with England and the colonies would de destroyed. Lo and behold, money suddenly became available to Scottish MP's to support union. In a poorly attended Scottish Parliament it was decided to appoint the commissioners to negotiate a union. Talks began ons began in April 1706 and were for the most part, completed by July. When the terms of the union were published, it was passed by a large majority (despite the huge protests of the Scottish people) by the Scottish Parliament on 16th January 1707.

By the terms of the Act, Scotland and England were to become one country. Anne became Queen of Great Britain and the throne passed to the House of Hanover on her death. There was also economic union with free trade on both sides of the border. Scotland was given only 45 seats in the House of Commons and 16 seats in the House of Lords. What can only be described as a bribe of £398,085-10s English pounds was paid by England as compensation for Scotland now taking on part of England's national debt. partly due to English interference. Scotland was to keep its legal system and Kirk.

Alas, on 28th April 1707 the last Scottish Parliament (until 1999) was dissolved by the last Scottish monarch.

---

The next one brought Ireland and England, shall we say, "together."

In 1800 the Act of Union was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments in the face of much opposition. It was signed by George III in August 1800 to become effective on 1 January 1801. William Pitt intended to follow the Act of Union with other, more far reaching reforms, including emancipating the Catholics, but was rebuffed by King George III, who refused to break his Coronation Oath to uphold the Anglican Church.

Basically, the 1801 Act of Union stated that:

Ireland was to be joined to Great Britain into a single kingdom, and to be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

.

The Dublin parliament was abolished. Ireland was to be represented at Westminster by 100 MPs, 4 Lords Spiritual and 28 Lords Temporal, all of whom were to be Anglican.

The Anglican Church was to be recognized as the official Church of Ireland.

There was to be free trade between Ireland and Britain.

Ireland was to keep a separate Exchequer and was to be responsible for two-seventeenths of the general expense of the United Kingdom.

Ireland was to keep its own Courts of Justice and civil service.

No Catholics were to be allowed to hold public office.

There was to be no emancipation of the Catholics

The Act sort of backfired. Trying to rule Ireland directly from Westminster solved little or nothing. True, it had it benefits during times of war but it never addressed the grievances in Ireland over land, religion or politics. It also ignored problems with the Irish economy and served as a rallying point for Irish Catholics to voice their objections to British rule.

Sanctioned on July 23, 1840 by Queen Victoria, the Act of Union came into being on February 10, 1841, uniting the two British North American colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada into a single province consisting of two sections: Canada West, where Upper Canada had been, and Canada East, replacing Lower Canada.

Lord Durham and the principles of unification

The rebellions of 1837 to 1838 in both Upper and Lower Canada proved to both the colonial government and the imperial government overseas that steps must be taken to prevent insurrection from occurring again. Identifying and rooting out the underlying causes of the unrest seemed the best course of action; Lord Durham, sent from London in 1839, included in his list of recommendations the unification of the two Canadas into a single province.

The question of unification was not a new one. When it had been taken to London previously as an extant option to be considered, however, the uproar from Lower Canada and its representatives was such that the idea was hastily dropped, accompanied by assurances that it would not be brought up again until input had been had from both sides to analyse the question thoroughly. At the time it was considered a minor victory for Louis-Joseph Papineau and other reformers in Lower Canada.

Enter Lord Durham. His view was that the unrest stemmed from racial conflict rather than from anything of a political nature:

... I expected to find a contest between a government and a people: I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could first succeed in terminating the deadly animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French and English...¹

Furthermore, much of his Report on the Affairs of British North America rested on the idea that the French-Canadian way of life was unworthy of preservation, and therefore should be incorporated entirely into mainstream Anglophone culture.

Durham's assimilation proposal was based on his idea that "there are two modes by which a government may deal with a conquered territory". One of these methods requires that the conquering government respect "the rights and nationalities of the actual occupants"; that is, that the culture of the inhabitants of the conquered territory be valued and preserved, in the name of anthropology if for no other reason. The second method

is that of treating the conquered territory as one open to the conquerors, of encouraging their influx, of regarding the conquered race as entirely subordinate, and of endeavouring as speedily and as rapidly as possible to assimilate the character and institutions of its new subjects to those of the great body of the empire.²

Evidently the former method would require a far greater commitment of time and resources on the part of the conquering empire than would the latter. Also, its use would imply that the society and culture to be preserved and protected is possessed of some redeeming value. Durham himself felt that the French Canadians were "a people with no literature and no history" and thus their culture was not worthy of protection. Also, it must be considered that Durham had in mind the prosperity of the British Empire in the colonies. The commitment of resources and special dispensation from government requisite to the preservation of a separate and distinct culture would impede the growth of colonial wealth.

The commonly-held view that Durham's suggested assimilation policy was narrow-minded and flawed is itself blinkered by modern considerations of cultural value. At the time, assimilation was the most practical and expedient method for colonial expansion and prosperity. In their quest for overseas colonial superiority, the British government could hardly be expected to go outside itself to protect a culture that was not its own. It also reflects the pervasive attitude of ethnocentrism that was implicit to British colonial policy through to the dissolution of the British Empire.

Minimising American influence

Another suggestion made by Durham, though it was eclipsed by the assimilation proposal, was that the executive branch of government be drawn from the party in the majority in the assembly. This was based on ideas of colonial reformers such as Robert Baldwin in Upper Canada, and was to develop into the system of government that we see in Canada today, in which Cabinet ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister from elected members in the House of Commons.

Durham's solution would not only stimulate colonial expansion, it would also strengthen the imperial influence in the colony by making the government more similar to the British government overseas. By strengthening imperial ties in British North America, American influence from the south would be limited.

One of the implications of John Turner's frontier thesis is that as the conquering of "frontier territory" makes up such a large part of the American identity, the American people must continually find and conquer more of it in order to retain their characteristics as Americans. With the opening of the interior of the continent and rapid American expansion westward, the people of the Canadas would have had good reason to fear that their own territory would soon fall victim to the American concept of Manifest Destiny -- that is, that Upper and Lower Canada would themselves become assimilated into the relatively new United States of America in an excited and enthusiastic fever of frontier expansion.

Also to the south, Andrew Jackson had been elected to as President of the United States and Jacksonian democracy was beginning to take hold; the idea of this sort of democracy was radical beyond the wildest aspirations of Durham and his Whig colleagues. Suggesting the implementation of a governmental executive appointed from elected officials -- in effect, a system of government responsible to the people for whom it acted -- may well have been a case of minimising American influence in British North America; only this time it is revolutionary political influence in the form of Jacksonian democracy that is to be limited rather than territorial conquest on the frontier.

The British and Canadian governments had good reason to fear for their sovereignty, both physical and political, in the face of such expansion. To allow American influences in their government might prove disastrous indeed to their independence in the long run, and so must be minimised if not prevented entirely.

Representation by population

In accordance with Durham's Report and against the better judgement of many colonial politicians, the Act of Union was created in 1840, though it did not come into effect until 1841. It wasn't long before its fairness was called into question.

Under the terms of the Act, each half of the United Province of Canada had an equal number of representatives in a joint Parliament. At the time of its institution, Lower Canada had a greater population; it was, naturally, the English population of Canada who had requested this measure of equality, in order that their voices not be drowned out by Francophone reformers. There was some quiet disagreement in Canada East, but it amounted to little.

Then, a census taken in 1851 revealed that the population of Anglophone Canada West had exceeded that of Canada East. Instantly there was a turnaround: politicians in Canada West were very, very vocal in demanding that the policy of equal representation be rescinded, in accordance with the population. "Rep by pop", or "representation by population", became their battle cry. That they had supported equal representation in 1840 was forgotten or ignored, as is the wont of politicians to do when a particular principle is no longer to their advantage.

Some elected members of Parliament from Lower Canada, namely radical reformers from the Parti Rouge, supported representation by population as a democratic ideal that should be upheld. Nearly all of the other Lower Canadian representatives were against it, however, fearing that their culture would be lost and their position weakened if they were to no longer have equal representation in Parliament. Which, of course, was the point.

Opposition to unification

Leading up to the Act of Union, Lower Canada was decidedly more well-off than was Upper Canada. Many of its residents were members of the working class; as it had little in the way of an elite to maintain, and leaders who were reasonably responsible when it came to spending money from taxes, it had almost no debts.

Upper Canada, on the other hand, was ruled by a petty clique of Tories who were for the most part hopelessly corrupt. It held a debt of £1.2 million -- half of which, after unification, Lower Canada was expected to shoulder, in the name of equality in all things.

English was decreed to be the sole official language of Parliament, which was contrary to the spirit of equality with which the Act was said to be imbued. Francophone politician Louis LaFontaine managed to effect change by refusing to speak English in the assembly; the Act was amended in 1848 to allow French in Parliament, but not until well after the damage had been done.

On the whole, terms of the Act of Union came out heavily in favour of Upper Canada. The issues it presented -- representation by population, perceived cultural inferiority, linguistic inequality, and debts imposed on those who had done nothing to accrue them -- were some of the most prominent ever raised in Canadian history, carrying over to the contemporary problem of separatism. The Act of Union was most of the reason for the political instability in Canada which lasted from its beginnings to Confederation in 1867.

---

¹ Lord Durham's Report, ed. Gerald M. Craig (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), pp. 22-23. ² Ibid., p.47.

Sources: Act of Union. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/2/18/h18-2954-e.html. Library and Archives Canada. 29 May 2004. Rep by Pop (Representation by Population). http://www.collectionscanada.ca/2/18/h18-2990-e.html. Library and Archives Canada. 29 May 2004. The "parti rouge". http://www.collectionscanada.ca/2/18/h18-2991-e.html. Library and Archives Canada. 29 May 2004. The Path to Confederation (1791-1967). http://collections.ic.gc.ca/stlauren/hist/hi_canada.htm. Concordia University. 29 May 2004. Canada in the Making: Constitutional History. http://www.canadiana.org/citm/themes/constitution/constitution11_e.html. Canadian Institute for Historical Microproductions. 29 May 2004.Ajzenstat, Janet. The Political Thought of Lord Durham. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988. Christopher, James R. The North Americans. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1988. Craig, Gerald M., ed. Lord Durham's Report. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963. Ouellet, Fernand. Lower Canada 1791-1840: Social Change and Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1980. Wade, Mason. The French-Canadian Outlook. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964.