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

cusp. vl THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE 447 Landers v. Woodworth} on appeal from Nova Scotia, held that the Assembly there could not remove a member for contempt unless he was actually obstructing the business of the House, and therefore was not justified in removing a member because he would not offer an apology in terms dictated by the House for having made an unjust accusation against the Provincial Secretary, though the Supreme Court. admitted that the decision was contrary to many decisions in Quebec rendered before Doyle v. Falconer. Again, in Barton v. Taylor ? it was held by the Privy Council as regards the case of New South Wales that the power of self-defence included some right to suspend but not a right to suspend indefinitely or for a definite time depending on the irresponsible decision of the House itself. It is true that these powers are exercised by the Imperial House of Com- mons, but it is settled law that the extraordinary privileges of the House are a part of the lex et consuetudo Parliaments which is peculiar to the House in England, and cannot be claimed except by virtue of a statute by the Colonial legis- latures. In the case of Fenton v. Hampion ® it was held by the Privy Council that the Legislative Council of Tasmania could not commit the Comptroller-General of Convicts there for refusing to appear before them to be examined as to the alleged ill-treatment of certain convicts. On the other hand, the powers under the mere powers of legislatures ex natura rer are not altogether insignificant. In Toohey v. Melville * it was held that the Speaker or Chair- man of the Legislative Assembly had power without a resolution of the House to eject from the chamber a member guilty of disorderly conduct and wilful obstruction of the course of business under standing order 176 of the British House of Commons, which had been adopted by the Legis- lative Assembly. In the case of Harnett v. Crick’ which ' 28. C.R. 158. The Assembly of New Brunswick used to assert exira- ordinary claims until 1844 ; see Hannay, New Brunswick, i. 182, 183; ii. 96, 97. 2 11 App. Cas. 197; 6 N. 8. W. L. R. 1. * 11 Moo. P. C. 347. Cf. Blackmore, Constitution of South Australia, pp. 106-8. ft 13N.S. W. L.R. 132. 5 [1908] A. C. 470 overruling 7 S. R. (N. 8. W.) 126.

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