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 III. The Parliaments of the Dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

cHAP. 1] POWERS OF DOMINION PARLIAMENTS 361 clearly that it was not a sound argument that, because a change might be deliberately made by Parliament in a constitution, therefore any ordinary Act whatever might be passed, though in contravention of constitutional provisions as they stood. On the other hand, there may be cases in which the Parlia- ment has really delegative powers, as under the Coinage (Colonial) Offences Act, 1858, the Extradition Act, 1870, the Mail Ships Act, 1891, the Army Act, 1881, ss. 156 (8) and 169, in which cases the usual rules as to delegated power would apply.! 8 2. THE LIMITATION OF THE POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENTS Although within their own sphere plenary, there are im- posed on the legislative powers of Dominion Parliaments certain restrictions which may be classed under four heads : (1) those arising from the essential character of a Parliament of a dependency as not sovereign in the full sense; (2) the territorial limits of their authority ; (3) the rule of non- repugnancy to Imperial law, and (4) the limitations as to ronstitutional change. From time to time, and in various forms, there has appeared the doctrine that there are certain subjects which are of so Imperial a character that they cannot be regarded as falling within the purview of any Colonial Legislature whatever, however august. Thus Robinson C.J. held in the case of Tully v. The Principal Officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance? that it was simply impossible for the Colonial Legislature to affect a right of the Ordnance, a department not in the country at all, though officers of it might be. The same point of view is represented by certain passages in the U Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia,® pp. 271, 272. * (1847) 5 U. C. Q. B. 6; Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 333, 758 ; 308. C. R., at pp. 47, 48. In this particular case the doctrine can be defended on the ground that the consent of the Imperial Government is necessary for proceedings against the Crown in its Imperial capacity ; of. pp. 144, 145, and Cape Town Council v. Hoskyn and others, 14 C. T. R. 386 : Palmer v. Hutchinson. 6 App. Cas. 619, Fraser v. Sivewright. 3 S. C. 55.

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