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

446 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [parrin approve his action. In the case of Sir T. Bent his actions! formed the subject of examination by a committee, but it discovered that irregularities had been the order of the day in Victoria, and of course it would be an error to confuse such irregularities with serious crime. § 2. THE PRIVILEGES OF THE PARLIAMENTS The question of the privileges of the Houses of Parliament in the Colonies has been the subject of some judicial decisions, but now is perfectly clear. There is no doubt that apart from statute a colonial legislature had no more real power than 2 debating society except in so far as measures to preserve order therein might be allowed to take more drastic forms than in a mere debating society. It was laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Kielley v. Carson? that the House of Assembly of Newfoundland had no power to order an arrest on a complaint of contempt committed out of doors, on the ground that no such privilege had been conferred upon it by the Crown even had the Crown had the power to do so, which the Court evidently did not believe, the power not being required for the purpose of enforcing the conduct of the proceedings of the House. In the case of Doyle v. Falconer ® they decided that the Legislative Assembly of Dominica, which was at the time a representative body, sould not punish for a contempt committed before it; it could remove an obstruction to business but not punish for any action taken. So the Supreme Court of Canada. in * Cf. Victoria Parliamentary Debates, 1909, pp. 330 seq.; Parl. Pap., Jess. 2, No. 1. . The useful function of the Auditor is there clearly shown, and the South Australia Government has asserted its desire for his free wction ; see House of Assembly Debates, 1910, p. 777. The disadvantages >f the want of proper control can be seen in the case of the illegal pay- ments from the Transvaal Treasury to members of Parliament in April 1910; see above, pp. 265, 266. It was then held that a civil suit to restrain an illegal payment by the Treasurer would not lie. For Canada, :f. the resignation of the Auditor-General in 1905. Canadian Annual Review, 1905, pp. 147 seq. * 4 Moo. P. C. 63, overruling Beaumont v. Barrett, 1 Moo. P. C. 59. Cf. Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, pp. 25, 26. * 4 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) 203.

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