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

622 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III The Assembly had claimed no more than the privileges of the House of Commons, but the Council had gone far beyond that. The Parliament of Canada had, after a long trial of an elective Upper House (from 1856 to 1867), returned to the system of nomination, which was a success in New Zealand, New South Wales, and Queensland. The system of nomina- tion would really be the proper solution of the difficulties in Victoria, but if an elective House were insisted upon he suggested that if a Bill were passed by the Assembly in two consecutive ordinary sessions and were twice rejected by the Council, then either the two Houses should sit together and the decision of an absolute majority should be final, or both Houses should be liable under certain conditions to be dissolved. On February 17, 18791 the Secretary of State replied, re- viewing at large the arguments of the Governor in favour of his conduct. He still was of opinion that he should not have consented to the removal of the judicial and civil officials. Refusal to remove would not necessarily have involved the removal of the ministers or their resignation ; the ministers had been induced by him partially to retrace their steps, and he might have succeeded by pressure in securing that they should not adopt the proposal which they finally adopted. In a dispatch of December 2, 1878, the Governor sent to the Secretary of State a petition to the Queen from the late Chief Engineer of Water Supply, who had been dismissed from the service in the financial crisis. His ministers were prepared, as a result of pressure which he had brought to bear upon them, to offer to the officer one year’s salary and allowance if he withdrew. the petition, although he was entitled to only £582. It was the duty, in his opinion, of Mr. Gordon to bring his case before the local legislature, which could vote him further compensation and could censure ministers for their conduct towards him. His Government were satisfied that Mr. Gordon had no legal grounds for the \ Parl. Pap., C. 2217, p. 75. t Parl. Pap., C. 2339, p. 1.

Access restriction

Copyright

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

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation