Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1012149900

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-24397

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Obst, Georg http://d-nb.info/gnd/11759296X

Title:: Geld-, Bank- und Börsenwesen

Edition:: 30., völlig veränd. Neuauflage

Place of publication:: Stuttgart

Publisher:: C.E. Poeschel Verlag

Year of publication:: 1937

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XVI, 566 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Business and Management Classics

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Erster Teil. Geld und Geldsurrogate

Collection:: Business and Management Classics

506 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART ITI province had the power to alter its constitution, if it saw fit to do so, a resort to Imperial legislation would be in- expedient except in circumstances of urgent necessity. The Legislative Council continues to exist, with functions co-ordinate with those of the Assembly except as respects Bills of revenue, expenditure, and taxation, which it cannot initiate or amend, though it might reject them, and did so up to 1891. It cannot be swamped, and therefore it cannot, for the present at least, be abolished. It has, indeed, been suggested that the Lieutenant-Governor could use the power to remove legislative councillors on the ground that they hold during pleasure ; thus he could either alter its com- position so as to secure the passing of a measure for its abolition, or he could de facto abolish the Council by dis- missing all the members. The latter theory must be certainly held to be ultra vires and illegal—the Lieutenant-Governor has the power to remove councillors but not to abolish the Council. It is more difficult to say that the former theory is, strictly speaking, illegal. It is the view of Bourinot that the power of the Lieutenant-Governor to remove councillors is confined to those cases laid down in the dispatch of 1845, but that view cannot be accepted as being legally, though it is no doubt constitutionally, correct. The Crown in 1845 eventually felt that it would be unwise to grant formally a life tenure subject only to vacating the post on certain definite conditions. The Imperial Government then left the matter at a tenure during pleasure, with instruc- tions which in effect said that the members were to be allowed to hold office during life unless certain circumstances arose. But it is clear that with the disappearance of the power of the Crown as exercised directly through the ! See also House of Assembly Journals, 1894, App. No. 17. The Govern- ment in 1890, after an attempt to abolish the Upper House failed—the Upper House having offended by rejecting certain money votes—only appointed members on pledges that they would consent to abolition. But these gentlemen, while accepting all other Government measures, refused to keep their pledges on this point. In New Brunswick the abolition of the Upper House was effected by the councillors keeping similar pledges ; see Hannay, ii, 345 seq.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation