Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

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:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

728 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v verted the argument of the Secretary of State : he pointed out that from their local character the Acts were essentially those which did not require intervention onImperial grounds: and he laid stress on the fact that as the Queen could only disallow by Order in Council so the Governor-General must disallow by that means: if ministers wished to disallow they should resign if they wished to do so while the Governor refused, and conversely, if he desired to disallow he must obtain a Cabinet which would agree to his proposed action. The case of pardon was essentially different, and no doubt might include serious Imperial interests. The report was approved on February 29, 1876, and was forwarded on April 6, 1876, to the Secretary of State. Ina reply of June 1, 1876, the Secretary of State intimated that in his view the use of the term Governor-General in s. 90, and not Governor- General in Council, was a sign of throwing personal responsi- bility on the Governor-General : otherwise the whole effect of the reservation of independent power to the provinces would be gone if the Dominion could deal as it pleased with their legislation. The matter could only be decided by the Privy Council. To this Mr. Blake replied that the omission of the words ‘in Council’ was for brevity and to avoid repetition, for else the power to disallow would be given to the Governor-General in Council. As to the argument of substance, it might at best be an argument for the alteration of the law, but even as that it was not conclusive, for the provinces were well able to punish any conduct infringing on their interests by the Dominion Government, and this was a much better safeguard against unsatisfactory legislation than an independent judgement on the part of the Governor- General, or his acting on instructions from home. The Secretary of State in a dispatch of October 31, 1876, still maintained his view, and suggested that if the Governor- General consulted his ministers he would be acting under their advice as laid down in the Lord President’s letter, though not according to their advice. In reply, Mr. Blake declined to accept the view that a man acted under advice when he rejected it, and pressed for the recognition that in

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation