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

106 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [rawr III 3. This question we also answer in the affirmative, and on the same ground of an unquestionable ‘repugnancy ’, 4. This question we answer in the negative, subject to our observations in answer to the question next following. 5. We are unable to lay down any rule to fix the dividing line between fundamental and non-fundamental rules of English law, as referred to in questions 3 and 4, and our answers thereto. It may safely, however, be stated that no laws which do not rest upon principles equally applicable in the nature of things to all Her Majesty’s Christian subjects mn every part of the British Dominions can be deemed to be such as would make a departure from them by a Colonial Legislature void on the ground of repugnancy to the prin- ciples of English law. We may add that we can hardly anticipate any practical difficulty in the way of the Court deciding the question of repugnancy, if called on so to do. It is extremely improbable that the Colonial Legislature would pass, that the Governor would sanction, and that the Crown would leave to its operation any Act repugnant in the above sense, and we think that the tribunals should not ander these circumstances be astute to discover such repug- nancy, but ought to disaffirm existing Acts on this ground only in cases admitting of no reasonable legal doubt. Such ~ases, we think, are not likely to occur. 6. We think that in an Act containing various distinct and separable provisions, one of such provisions invalid on account of ‘ repugnancy ’ would not vitiate other portions of the Act, which might be free from that defect. 7. We answer this question in the negative. We under- stand the expression of the Governor, being ‘forbidden to assent without urgentnecessity’, to referto the Royal ‘instruc- tions’, of which a copy is enclosed in the last enclosure in the accompanying paper, No. 511, and although the 13 & 14 Viet. c. 59. ss. 12 and 33, apply to certain Colonial Acts the provisions of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76 (see ss. 11, 31), em- powering Her Majesty to issue ‘instructions’ and the Governor to assent in conformity with such instructions, yet we consider such instructions to be a matter between the Crown and the Governor, and to be to the latter directory only. The Governor alone can judge of the urgent neces- sity ’ in case of which, when the Statute does not expressly require the Act to be ‘ reserved’, &c.. he is at liberty on all beeasions to assent. 8. We see no reason to doubt the validity of the South Australian Constitutional Act, per se, understanding thereby

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