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

cHAP. viI] CABINET SYSTEM IN DOMINIONS 331 defeated body is hardly ever desirable : it may also create very complicated relations between the Governor and his ministers if he is asked to do anything at all unusual by the Government which has lost its hold on the people, as was seen in Sir C. Tupper’s case, and the cases of Ontario in 1905 and New Brunswick in 1908. On the other ‘hand, ministers must claim the right to meet Parliament if they think that it is in the public interest to do so, and, if they confine themselves to measures of ordinary administra- tion in that period the Governor is certainly not compelled to take steps to secure other advisers. But it is certain he could not consent to delay the opening of Parliament longer than was usual or proper, and if the majority against the Government were a great one he would probably be justified in trying to secure that there should be an early meeting of Parliament, or that ministers should resign:! in the South Australian case the majority for the Opposition was very small, two votes at best, and it was hoped or thought that by forcing the Opposition to place one of its members in the chair the result might be brought about that it would have either no majority or a majority of one, while in the Upper House nearly all the members were members of the governmental party. Ministries, of course, also resign when they cannot find adequate support in the Lower House, and either do not ask for, or if they ask for, do not receive a dissolution.? As in England, as a normal rule, the Lower House alone determines the Government of the day, and the Upper House has no voice in its selection. This is obviously the case with all the Legislatures which have nominee Upper Houses, and it is no less so with those which have elective Upper ‘ Cf. New Zealand Parl. Pap., 1879, A. 1 and 2. * So in 1905 Mr. Daglish resigned in Western Australia without even asking for a dissolution (Parliamentary Debates, xxvii. 803), as the party would not work harmoniously ; in three of the cases of the Commonwealth changes a dissolution has been asked for but refused. Sir J. Macdonald in 1873 resigned before an adverse vote, which was certain, could actually be passed (Pope, ii. 184 seq.).

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