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

1400 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI regard to the interpretation of the Australian instructions was well known to the Canadian Government. Mr. Blake protested strongly against the adoption of this form of instructions, and explained the principle on which his objection rested in a long minute. The Secretary of State in the main adopted his suggestions, though some further correspondence passed with regard to the desire which was pressed strongly by Mr. Blake, that nothing should appear as to the right of pardons in the letters patent. The Secretary of State was prepared to concede this request, but he decided that there must be kept in the royal instruc- tions a clause dealing with the matter, and in that decision Mr. Blake and the Canadian Government finally acquiesced. The following extract shows the grounds of Mr. Blake's representation :— The main question is upon the instruction given to the Governor that he is in capital cases either to extend or to withhold a pardon or a reprieve according to his own deli- berate judgement whether the members of the Council concur therein or otherwise. Having regard to the form of the com- mission and of this instruction the proper inference is that in all cages not capital the action of the Governor by way of pardon or commutation is to be, as is his action in other matters, under advice, and that it is only in the capital cases which are specially dealt with by the instruction that he is to act upon his own judgement even against advice. The distinction thus created does not appear well founded. It pro- vides a different rule of action based simply on the gravity of the sentence, whereas the only tenable distinction that occurs to the sub-committee is between the cases (whether capital * It may be noted that originally the Imperial Government decided that the power of pardon must be vested for all purposes in the Governor-General, overruling the proposals in s. 44 of the Quebec Resolutions, and not in the Lieutenant-Governors, and the royal letters patent originally provided for this. But when it became clear that the Lieutenant-Governors could legally pardon for offences against provincial laws (see 23 S. C. R. 458) the wording needed change to exclude such cases from the prerogative, else the Governor-General could pardon under the prerogative in such cases. But the change was only made in 1905, following the Commonwealth model, which applied to very different circumstances, for the Commonwealth has no criminal law proper. Ct. Canada Sess. Pap., 1869, No. 16.’

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