Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

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:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1X] DIVORCE AND STATUS 1245 he returned to England so that he could be proceeded against there, and this case is actually understood to have occurred. The cases of deviation from the list of prohibited degrees are also Australian for the most part. In South Australia the proposal was made in 1860 to legalize marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and the reserved Bill was not assented to; nothing daunted, the Parliament sent it up in 1863 to meet the same doom ; in 1870 the Bill was again refused the royal assent, but in 1871 the Imperial Government yielded, and the Bill was allowed to become law (No. 21). Tasmania legislated to this effect in 1874 (No. 7), and a Queensland Bill, to which assent was refused in 1875, was allowed to come into force in 1877 (No. 25). New South Wales adopted the principle in 1876 (No. 20), and Victoria enacted it in its Act No. 453, and the rule was also adopted in Western Australia 68 Vict. No. 11), New Zealand (1880), and Canada (45 Vict. c.42). Inthe case of Natal before responsible government it was not approved, despite the precedents of the Australian cases, on the ground that therewas no real popular demand for the measure? But in 1892 the Cape enacted, and there was allowed, an Act (No. 40) to provide for such marriages, and also to permit of a marriage with any female related to him in a more remote degree than the sister of his deceased wife, provided that she was not an ancestor of or descendant from the wife in question The principle has been extended to In every self-governing Dominion save Canada divorce courts exist. In Canada the older provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island (but no divorce has ever taken place there), and British Columbia have divorce courts. See Wheeler, Confederation Law, pp. 250 seq. ; Senate Debates, 1910-1, Pp. 250 seq. It is interesting to note that Nova Scotia hy 32 Geo. IL ec. 17 adopted the Scottish rule of desertion founding a divorce, but this was repugnant to the laws of England, and violated the commission under which the Assembly and Council legislated, 30 the English law was replaced by 1 Geo. IIL ec. 7. Since 1867 the law is stereotyped, as the provinces cannot alter, and Canada, which can, will not because of French Canadian feeling. There is no divorce in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, save by Canadian Act. * Lord Norton, Nineteenth Century, July 1879, pp. 172, 173. See Act No. 45 of 1898; Parl. Pap., C. 5091, pp. 113-22, ® Since this Act, at any rate, itis not incest to have relations with a wife’s sister, in the view of the Cape Supreme Court; R. v. Delport, 11C. T. R. 412. 1279°3

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation