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

CHAP. vii] RELATIONS OF THE HOUSES 627 solemnly put forward by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in 1878 in the case of Victoria, and though often asserted both at home and in the Colonies, was clearly a claim which cduld not be made good. Presumably, if the two Houses were elective and if the Upper House represented the wealth of the country, it was intended that the Upper House should have a free voice as to financial matters, and the agreement arrived at was intended in effect to maintain this free voice. Nor did it fail of its purpose, but of late years the Council has complained that the control of expenditure is passing from its hands! But this seems to be due not so much to any formal breach of the agreement as to the loan policy of the Government, which leaves them a wide discretion in the application of the moneys raised by loan. On the other hand, the Council is aware that it cannot reject a Loan Bill, for a public works policy is not merely essential to the state but is extremely popular, and any effort to insist upon con- trolling this policy would end in disaster to the Council. None the less, in 1910 they insisted on cutting an item of £1,000,000 out of the Loan Bill for public works, as they had not agreed to the proposal for wharves construction.? But if the Council must content itself with a lessening influence in financial matters pure and simple, they may reflect that they maintain an absolute predominance in all matters regarding ordinary legislation. They have never hesitated to reject year after year such Bills as they deemed unwise, and to amend as freely as they liked those which they accepted. The Workmen’s Compensation Bill® has been long delayed by the repeated refusal of the Upper House to accept the principle, or rather the details, of a measure which has been in force for long in England, and has been adopted in the other Colonies, not even with the exception * So they complained in 1908 of public works expenditure appearing in 30 ordinary Appropriation Bill which they could not amend ; Legislative Council Debates, 1908, Pp. 622; and cf. Chronicle, December 26, 1908. ? See House of Assembly Debates, 1910, p. 1277; 1911, pp. 104-10, 192-4, 222-32, 251-60, 267-73, * Ct, House of Assembly Debates, 1910, pp. 209, 255 seq.; 1911, p. 100; and see Adelaide Advertiser, December 2, 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