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 VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

1344 . THE JUDICIARY [PART VI asserting that his removal was absolutely necessary, the other from the Lower House declaring that through his action public confidence in his administration of the law of the province was destroyed. The Law Officers were referred to for advice as to whether the Queen could dismiss Mr. Boothby on the strength of the addresses sent home, and whether she had a discretion in the matter ; also whether, if removal were decided upon, it should be on the grounds that the Legislature must be assumed to have acted with reason, or on the grounds disclosed in the evidence taken before the committees of the Houses and their report; it was also asked if any appeal would lie from a dismissal, and if the fact that there had been two addresses instead of one, as called for in the exact wording of the Act, would make any difference. The law officers advised that there was no objection to separate addresses or to the absence of specific charges in the addresses, pro- vided that the Queen was satisfied that ground existed for dismissal —the Crown had always a discretion to remove or not in consequence of such an address ; but removal would be quite justified if, owing to a judge’s perversity or habitual disregard of judicial propriety, the administration of justice were practically obstructed; no appeal to the Privy Council would lie, and in this case they did not recom- mend dismissal because the difficulties which had arisen were to some extent real, in view of the Governor assenting to Acts which should have been reserved, and in addition, strictly speaking, the Houses when they passed the addresses were not lawfully constituted, owing to the invalidity of the Electoral Act, No. 10 of 1856, under which they were elected, although that defect was cured by an enactment ex post facto validating all the acts of the Legislature. In the case of the Crown Colonies one mode of removal, which was approved in 1870 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? and has been very convenient, was that t See Parl. Pap., August 1862; above, Part III, chap. iii. In 1866 another attempt to remove him by address failed, the Privy Council agreeing with the Law Officers, and he was therefore in 1867 amoved by the Governor in Council ; South Australia Parl. Pap., 1867, Nos. 22, 23, 41. v Parl. Pap., C. 139.

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