Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:24:04.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada and the Abdication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

F. C. Cronkite
F. C. Cronkite*
Affiliation:
The University of Saskatchewan
Get access

Extract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 1938 , pp. 177 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dawson, R. MacG., Constitutional Issues in Canada, 1900-1931 (Oxford, 1933).Google Scholar

2 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings (London), p. 14.Google Scholar

3 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 81.Google Scholar

4 For the text of this Order-in-Council, see ibid., 1937, vol. I, p. 40.

5 Ibid., Statement of the prime minister of Canada.

6 1 Edw. VIII, c. 3.

7 1 Geo. VI, c. 16.

8 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 43.Google Scholar

9 Ibid.

10 1 Will. and Mary, sess. 2, c. 2.

11 Taswell-Langmead, , English Constitutional History, ed. 8, p. 622.Google Scholar

12 12 & 13 Will. III, c. 2.

13 See, e.g., The King v. Sunderland Corporation, (1911) 2 K.B. 458.

14 22 Geo. V, c. 4.

15 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 67.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., p. 80.

17 Quoted, ibid., p. 66.

18 Ibid., p. 80.

19 Ibid., p. 76.

20 1 Edw. VII, c. 15.

21 17 Geo. V, c. 4.

22 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 72.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., pp. 78 ff.

24 Quoted, ibid., p. 79.

25 1 Geo. VI, c. 16.

26 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 88.Google Scholar

27 Blackstone, , Commentaries, vol. I, p. 249.Google Scholar

28 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 74.Google Scholar

29 12 Geo. III, c. 11.

30 See Canada, House of Commons Debates, unrevised ed., 1938, p. 2100 Google Scholar, for a verbatim report.

31 See, e.g., Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, (1930) A.C. 124.

32 Reference Re The Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, etc., (1936) S.C.R. 461, at p. 477.Google Scholar

33 See M v. P, (1922) 1 W.W.R. 880 (Supreme Court of Canada).

34 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1937, vol. I, p. 80.Google Scholar