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 639 fact that the members had a property qualification; that they were elected for wider areas, and that plumping was allowed in elections for the Upper House but at no other elections. The result was naturally that the Upper House reflected as a rule the views of the Lower House very closely. Moreover, when the Houses were not in agreement, the express power of amending Money Bills given to the Upper House by the Constitution! was remarkable and inconvenient. The difficulty was well illustrated by the Circumstances in which Dr. Jameson’s Ministry found itself Compelled to ask the Governor to dissolve Parliament. At the end of 1907 the Lower House sent up a Supply Bill to the Legislative Council. At that moment, by the defection of a member who had formerly supported his Ministry, Dr. Jameson ceased to have a majority in the Upper House. It was true that when the House was sitting the Govern- lent still had a majority, thanks to the President’s casting Vote, but when the House went into Committee to consider the Bill in detail the Government actually lost its majority 3d could make absolutely no progress with the Bill, nor could the House force the Committee to proceed with the Bill,? Ror for want of a quorum dispense with the Committee stage. In general legislation the Upper House again has acted 4S a co-ordinate body with the Lower House, and it cannot be said that the duplication of machinery has resulted I particular advantage to the country? It has repeatedly had differences with the Lower House,* and in one case 0 1898 it is said to have been instrumental in securing the ¢aItying through of a redistribution scheme by the Govern- Ment But all the same, it is difficult to see that it has done much good : for example, the legislation of 1887 and 1892 restricting the franchise as regards natives was farried quite easily in the Upper House. " Ordinance No, 2 of 1852, 5. 88. The Upper House could have amended ills 80 a8 to increase the burden on the people ; in practice it did not. He of Assembly Debates, 1907, pp. 582, 589, 590, 597; Legislative : cil Debates, 1907, pp. 338-74; above, Pp. 211. : UE The Government of South Africa, i. 422, 423. See Wilmot, South Africa, i 189. 345. See Wilmot. op. cit. iii. 347.

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