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

CHAPTER III REPUGNANCY OF COLONTAL LAWS THE second great ground on which Colonial legislation may be invalid is that of repugnancy to English law. The rule used always to be that an Act of a Colonial legis- lature must not be repugnant to English law? and the exact force of this term was wrapped in decent obscurity : few cases ever rose upon the point, and they were easily disposed of. But the whole question received a new impor- tance when Mr. Benjamin Boothby was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. He promptly began to enunciate a series of doctrines which, though in part neutralized by the presence in the Colony of two other judges who did not in all points agree with him, were very awkward for all concerned in the administration of justice. Eventually the two Houses of the Parliament passed, as required by the Constitution Act, addresses for his removal, and the matter thus came before the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The judge’s views 2 are interesting because they show the high-water mark of distrust of Colonial law. He asserted that the Court was called upon to examine into the validity of the Acts which it was required to interpret : the Select Committee of the Legislative Council which examined him to ascertain his views differed from him in this regard, but the Select ' The Constitution of New Zealand still contains this formal rule (15 & 16 Vict. c. 72, s. 53), and as regards South Australia and Tasmania, see 13 & 14 Viet. c. 59,8. 14. Cf. Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q. B. 717. * Parl. Pap., August 1862. An Act, 6 Vict. c. 22, gave power to Colonial egislatures to pass laws regarding the admission of evidence of persons who sould not take a Christian oath, but this was not considered a ground for admitting the validity of a law of Hong Kong in 1857 altering the law regarding perjury ; Forsyth. Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, n. 23,

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