Professor Ashley was a pioneer in the most explicit meaning of that term. His work at Oxford identified him with a small group that was deeply concerned with the exploration of new fields of history. He was called to the University of Toronto in 1888 to establish a new Department of Political Science. In 1892, the subject with which he was most intimately concerned was formally recognized by his appointment to a chair in Economic History at Harvard. Distinguished work in this field, however, merely served to reveal new opportunities. Professor Ashley became increasingly aware of the possibilities of developing a programme of instruction for business executives. His work at Harvard was being developed to meet these new needs, when an opportunity was presented to develop such a programme on a larger scale at the University of Birmingham. His appointment as professor of Commerce in 1901 was thus a natural development of his thought and activity, and he gave the rest of his career to a programme which embodied important anticipations of the further development of economic history.

I am happy to have been given this opportunity to pay tribute—a warm personal tribute, and a tribute from my colleagues and the University which I represent—to the distinguished Department of the University of Toronto whose half-century of accomplishment is being celebrated in this series of lectures. Though longevity provides the occasion for the celebration, it is quality that we honour. Distinguished as its history has been, at no time has the Department of Political Science in the University of Toronto commanded more respect among economists and political scientists than it does at present.

I welcome, also, the opportunity to pay loyal tribute to the founder of the Department of Political and Economic Science of Queen's University whose work did much to set the direction and the tone of teaching and studies in Politics and Economics, not only at Queen's University, but elsewhere in this country.

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.

I speak as an economist and not as a physical scientist or an engineer. I accept as an accomplished fact, or as a fact in process, that ours is an age of technological advance. I assert that in all this there is only a limited significance unless its benefits come to the masses of the people. The lead that the British nation has given toward industrial democracy over three-quarters of a century through collective bargaining and through the other expressions of the will and desires of the workers is one of the finest achievements of modern civilization. Marching with political democracy and the democratization of education, it represents the most widespread set of benefits, materially and morally, that has come to humanity in our day and the day of our fathers and grandfathers. And I say this in full knowledge of the limited success of the British Labour party while in power in Parliament.

First, the political expression of labour in Britain is a part of the recognized functioning of democracy and as such is freely admitted. Second, the co-operative movement represents in a limited way the democratization of the property institution. Control over the buying and the production is as wide as the membership, and there is no profit running with investment. Third, the organization into unions partakes also of the nature of democracy so far as relations within the unions is concerned. But beyond that, when it comes to dealing with the powerful competing elements in an organized economy, viz., the capital-owning and profit-taking interests, it drops in large measure the democratic methods of discussion and decision and concern for the individual expression of every man. It takes up rather the weapons of the capitalist economy, viz., the concentration of power to drive hard bargains and even to force them upon the other party. Unionism—and I am thinking chiefly of its chief strand, the collective bargaining unionism—assumes a continuing opposition of interest between the propertied and controlling interests on the one hand and labour on the other, and between them battle must be done. That assumption brings in a point of view that is narrower in its compass than a democratic concern for the whole society and a methodology that seeks to elevate a single group with little concern for other sections of the community.

The economic sphere of influence of the St. Lawrence region contracted after 1821 owing to the pressure of competition in the fur trade from Hudson Bay. Withdrawal from the light, highly valuable staple, fur, was accompanied by increasing concentration on a staple of a bulky character, namely, timber. Settlement emerged with the timber trade especially in Upper Canada. Settlement and wheat exports were stimulated by the steamship and necessitated improvement of the St. Lawrence by canals and railways. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 increased the urgency for improved navigation on the St. Lawrence, if Montreal were to compete effectively with New York. The pressure of geography, a small population, a lack of capital, and competition from the United States involved governmental support. Economic development was, therefore, inextricably linked to political growth to achieve this objective. Government construction of canals was handicapped by the division of the provinces, and contributed to the demands for union. The Act of Union of 1840 as a broader political base for expansion of public debt involved control of taxation, and responsible government. Disintegration of the old Colonial System in the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the Navigation Acts in 1849 was accompanied by the emergence of control over tariffs as an essential device for acquiring revenue. The tariff became vital to the improvement of the St. Lawrence and the introduction of capital on a large scale by the government. The privilege of determining the course of economic development was accompanied by the problem of meeting the costs involved.