The present paper deals with the circumstances under which the right of self-government was acquired by the province of Canada. It is concerned chiefly with the period that elapsed between the presentation of Lord Durham's report, in which “responsible government” was recommended, and the passing of the Rebellion Losses Bill of 1849, whose sanction by Lord Elgin indicates the final and complete adoption of this principle. Special emphasis is laid upon the constitutional crisis that occurred under the administration of Sir Charles Metcalfe with a view to placing in its proper historical perspective the influence exercised by the colonial reform party in the evolution of the imperial system. It is the aim of the paper to show that the interpretation of the principle of responsible government now prevailing was not present in the minds of imperial statesmen at the time of the adoption of the Act of Union of 1840, commonly assigned as the date of the inception of self-government. The essay is based upon the papers of Lord Sydenham and Lord Metcalfe, the collection of Baldwin pamphlets in the Toronto Public Library, certain official documents of the Canadian archives, and other original sources which the writer has had occasion to consult in preparing his biographies of Baldwin, LaFontaine, and Hincks in the Makers of Canada Series.

World War II left Europe economically bankrupt, politically paralyzed, and spiritually sick. In contrast, we find today—thanks to the leaven of the Marshall Plan and other U. S. assistance, and the self-help and mutual-help measures of Western European countries—a vastly improved Continent of Europe.

First, economic collapse has been avoided. The mills, plants, and shops in most countries are humming as they never did before. The current output of industry in Western Europe is roughly forty per cent larger than in 1938, and sixty per cent above that of 1947. Agriculture has likewise shown encouraging improvement. The volume of intra-European trade which had come to a virtual standstill in 1947 has sharply increased until it is now over one-third higher than that of the pre-war era. The dollar deficit in Europe has been substantially reduced from a peak of $7 billion and, except for the special requirements of the post-Korean rearmament program, it would probably have been brought into manageable proportions by 1951.

Our present discontents have evoked many earnest words on the subject of “social planning.” We are told that “capital can be defended only by constructive programs based on the consideration of social responsibility;” that we are headed for “a frightful cataclysm” unless we adopt “a national plan that will control and guide the basic industries, govern the investment of capital, and keep purchasing power in step with production;” that if we are to avoid revolution, “we dare not sit indefinitely in contemplative inaction;” that “we require a leadership that will help us think less about the theories of individualism and more about the tragedies to individuals,” inasmuch as “men cannot eat words … cannot wear words … cannot trust their old age to words.” In brief, if we are to avoid something worse, we must take some thought for the morrow.

In recent years there has been an interesting and very remarkable extension of judicial control over the acts of the administrative authorities in France. The doctrine of recourse in annulment for excess of power, in particular, has undergone such an extraordinary development that it is probably safe to say that there is now no other country where private rights are better protected against arbitrary and illegal acts of public officers. It is an interesting fact also that this protection has not been created by legislation but is mainly the work of the council of state, and, to a less degree, of the court of cassation, the two supreme judicial tribunals of France.

The solicitude which the council of state, especially, has shown for the protection of individual rights and the independence which it has exhibited as over against the government by whom the councillors of state are appointed and by whom they may be removed at pleasure is a sufficient answer to the criticism of those English and American writers who assert that the French administrative courts are the docile and servile instruments of the government, and that in controversies between the administration and private individuals their decisions are generally in favor of the administration.

On April 7, 1939, the Italian news agency, Stefani, announced officially that Italian troops had landed in Albania. Having overcome some resistance, they entered Tirana, the capital, the following day and then rapidly completed the occupation of the country. An attempt at legal justification followed this military action. The Italian press announced that after the landing of troops an Albanian provisional committee, quickly formed, convoked an Assembly composed of delegates from all Albanian provinces. On April 12, 1939, this Assembly, having vested itself with full powers, declared the decadence of the preceding régime and offered the crown of Albania to the king of Italy. The Italian law of April 16, 1939, n. 580, declared that the king of Italy, having accepted the crown of Albania, assumed for himself and for his successors the title of King of Italy and Albania, Emperor of Ethiopia. Then followed a series of measures legally entrusting Italy with full control over Albania.