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

566 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III good. There remains in each case the fact that the nominee House might throw out a Bill for the general supply, and could easily be tempted in a crisis to reject a Bill for some particular supply, though the action of the Lords in 1909 in the United Kingdom, and its sequel, are a significant warn- ing against unconstitutional conduet, and the rejection of a whole Appropriation Bill is unthinkable in Canada, New Zealand, New South Wales, and Queensland. In 1878 the Upper House in Quebec threw out the Supply Bill in order to embarrass the Government of M. Joly, but that was exceptional in two ways : in the first place, M. Joly held office on a most insecure tenure, and the province had been much moved by the proceedings in the case of M. Letellier ; in the second place, it was the case of a nominee House, which could not be swamped as the numbers were limited. So boo in Natal, the Upper House in 1905 declined to accept a native-tax Bill proposed by the Government as a means of raising revenue: the Bill was not exactly a desirable measure, and the gravamen of the charge against it was mainly that it was unfair to increase native taxation even with the usual requirement of the reservation of the Bill under the royal instructions and the consequent necessity of securing the assent of the Imperial authorities. In the case of the Transvaal an interesting dispute arose in 1908 as to what constituted a Money Bill! When the Public Service and Pensions Bill came before the Legislative Council the President of the Council ruled that as some of the clauses of the Bill dealt with appropriations the whole Bill was, within the meaning of the letters patent establishing the Legislature, a Money Bill, and while it could be rejected it could not be altered by the Upper House. Several of the members of the Council disputed his ruling, and eventually the Government referred home to the Secretary of State for an opinion on the matter. The Secretary of State replied in a dispatch, No. 104 of March 25, 1909, conveying the views of the law officers of the Crown on the question, and also sending a copy of a letter from the Clerk of the House of ' Transvaal Legislative Assembly Debates, 1909, Pp. 691 seq., 898 seq.

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