Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

266 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [rArT LI and even if the Governor were able to concur that the special payment was necessary in the public interest, yet the fact remained that the necessity arose while the House was in session, and could have been dealt with in Parliament by means of a Bill. As a matter of fact the Government had intended to deal with it in Parliament, but the knowledge that the Opposition in the Upper House would not approve the proposal induced the Government to make the payment without obtaining the assent of that House. Notwithstand- ing these dicta of the Supreme Court the Transvaal Govern- ment proceeded to ask the Governor to issue a special warrant for the sanctioning of the payment of the amount in question. When the warrant was issued the Legislature had risen, and therefore the objection by the Chief Justice that the Legislature was in session when the payment was made did not apply, strictly speaking, to the signing of the warrant. The action of the Administrator was much questioned, and the matter was brought before the Imperial Parliament, when the Under-Secretary of State accepted for his chief full responsibility for the action of the Adminis- trator, who it appeared had telegraphed home for instructions and had received authority to sign the warrant. In the House of Commons on June 29, the defence of the Adminis- trator’s action was based by the Under-Secretary of State on the grounds that he had signed on the advice of ministers, and that as the Audit Act defined Governor in that Act to mean Governor in Council! the Administrator was bound to act on the advice of his ministers, and could not act otherwise. It was not made quite clear whether the Under- Secretary of State considered that he must always act on the advice of his ministers, or whether he merely held that the case was not one in which it would have been justifiable to decline to accept advice. The matter seemed so unsatisfactory to Lord Northcote that he raised the question in the House of Lords on July 25, and Lord Crewe gave a more complete ! The Union Interpretation Act, No. 5 of 1910,similarly defines Governor- General to mean in all cases Governor-General in Council. This is an inconvenient definition, but follows Cape Act No. 5 of 1883.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation