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:: Chapter VIII. The constitutional relations of the houses

Collection:: Economics Books

600 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III place in 1865.1 It was then proposed by the Ministry of the day to pass a Protectionist Tariff, and as the Ministers knew that the Upper House, in the agricultural interests, would not be willing to accept it, they attempted to produce the result by tacking this provision to the Appropriation Bill of the year, adding also the repeal of the gold tax. It was argued in favour of their action that it was not a real case of tacking, as the matters were not substantially distinct, but it would be difficult to maintain this view in the ordinary sense of the word ‘tacking’. The Council laid the Bill aside on July 25, and a deadlock ensued. The Prime Minister then introduced into the Lower House a resolution which asserted practically the same powers for the Lower House as had been asserted in 1861 by the Imperial House of Commons. The Governor was induced to consent to raising revenue on a resolution of the Assembly alone, it being argued that this was con- formable to the practice in force in the United Kingdom, where the House passes a resolution as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his Budget speech, on the strength of which the revenue is collected. Petitions were filed by merchants in the Supreme Court, and the judges decided that the demanding of duties under the mere resolution of the Legislative Assembly was illegal? The London Chartered Bank of Australia, whose only resident director was the Prime Minister, agreed to make advances upon no other sccurity than the pledge of the Government for the repayment of the amount advanced, so that the dispute between the Council and the Assembly could be arranged. Then the London Chartered Bank brought an action for the moneydue; the Attorney-General confessed judgement, so the case did not come before Court, but the money was paid. ! See Parl. Pap., March, May 28, June 1866; H. C. 310, 1867; H. C. 157, April and June 1868 ; C. 2173, pp. 103-13; Rusden, Australia, iii. 286 seq. * Stevenson v. The Queen, (1865) 2 W. W. and A’B. L. 143. Cf. Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, p. 747, note 1. The case in England in 1909-10 was analogous, but the claim to levy was not made of right and the levying was therefore voluntary, and was legalized by the Act of 1910,

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