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. vir] RELATIONS OF THE HOUSES 629 been put into force. The Governor granted a dissolution when he found that the Opposition could not form a Govern- ment; as the elections were favourable to the Ministry the Council decided to yield, and finally the franchise was fixed by Act No. 920 at £17 rental qualification, with a single vote, whereas the demand before had been at £15 rental qualification and a double vote. In 1910 the Labour Government under Mr. Verran intro- duced into the Lower House and passed a Franchise Extension Bill, which was intended to confer the franchise on all those persons entitled to vote for the election of the members of the Assembly. In introducing this Bill the Chief Secretary quoted a remark by the present Leader of the Opposition In the House of Assembly, made on April 26, 1906 :— It had become intolerable that a body of eighteen men elected by 52,000 constituents, should have the power to veto the will, acts, and aspirations of a body of forty-two members, responsible to 179,000 people. That was against all notions of British constitutional government. The Council had become more and more representative of a class and of class interests. The people of New South Wales, New Zealand, and Queensland, with their nominee Councils, had much more political freedom than that enjoyed by the people of this state, and it was never intended by the Imperial Government that that should be so when responsible overnment was given to the Colonies one after the other. The Legislative Council, however, showed no intention of accepting the proposal, and threw out the Bill* The Govern- ment then prepared a Deadlocks Bill, but though it pasced the Lower House 2 it went too late to the Upper House to be dealt with that year. A Veto Bill was passed by the Assembly in 1911, but rejected by the Council. * In the same year the two Houses were divided in opinion as to the surrender of the Northern Territory ; see Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 1910, pp. 4647 seq. ; South Australia Legislative Council Debates, 1910, PP. 181 seq., 226 seq.; House of Assembly Debates, 1910, p. 717. Then the Upper House passed a Bill to repeal the Act of 1907 for the surrender, but the Lower House declined to accept it, and ultimately the Act hd allowed to stand and the territory was surrendered. Cf. House of Assembly Debates. 1910, po. 1110, 1184, 1248. It contem-

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