Suchergebnisse

There was much of the realist in Aristotle, more perhaps than in many political scientists of today. In defence of the moderns, however, it may be claimed that Aristotle had comparatively little to try his patience. The British Empire, which "defies classification," along with its legal appendage the Dominion of Canada—with all the complications of a federal system—is no doubt sufficient to exhaust the patience of a political scientist who would be sure of his constitutional foundations.Political scientists as well as others are impatient with the constitutional situation at present existing in Canada. They characterize this situation as uncertain; they want this uncertainty to be corrected so that they can get on with the job of progress. They say that not only are their efforts impeded by constitutional limitations but that many of the constitutional usages now relied on may be merely illusory. So there is a tendency to blame the law and the lawyers even to the point of ridicule. Certainly if all the proposed reforms really do spell progress the law and lawyers have a lot to answer for; and yet should we not be charitable to this law which is required to do the impossible: to stand still and go ahead at the same time?

In a recent work on constitutional law one finds the chapters prefaced by quotations from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass—a feature somewhat startling to the uninitiated but highly refreshing to any student of the Constitution of the British Empire. The complexities of this constitution have not been resolved with the passing of the years, rather have new difficulties arisen through the apparent achievement of autonomy by the Dominions. In search of a constitution there is almost a note of despair in the words of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee (1926): "it [the British Empire] defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried."A visitor to the House of Commons during the early days of the second session of the eighteenth Parliament of Canada might well have considered himself in Wonderland. The House had under consideration the abdication of His former Majesty King Edward VIII and the accession of His Majesty King George VI to the throne, and was concerned that rules of law should be followed and constitutional proprieties observed in this Dominion. The discussion called out an amazing variety of opinion. Eminent constitutional lawyers were in disagreement at almost every point. Probably the bewilderment of the average member was pretty well expressed by Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, when he said: "I confess that as I have listened to the discussion so far I have not been greatly enlightened, but indeed somewhat confused. We have had brought before us a great many legal and metaphysical subtleties. Whether the Crown is unitary or divisible and multiple I do not quite know." In this article it is proposed to discuss the abdication with reference to the more important legal and constitutional principles involved. No attempt will be made to examine the body of legal learning touching the nature of the kingship. Emphasis will rather be placed on the difficulties and anomalies which have developed along with the evolution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This will involve a consideration of the propriety of the action of the Parliament and government of Canada in dealing with the situation created by the abdication of His former Majesty.