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

crap. Iv] THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY 1405 to throw the responsibility upon ministers. Mr. Deakin stated that he would be perfectly prepared to accept the principle laid down with regard to Canada, in which the Governor-General was not expected to exercise any discre- tion except in the case where the pardon or reprieve might directly affect the interests of the Empire or of any country or place beyond the jurisdiction of the Government of the Dominion. The opinions expressed, however, were on the whole unfavourable to the making of any change. Mr. Service indeed supported on behalf of Victoria the proposal to alter the instructions. He alluded to the fact that the Governor was instructed to call upon the judge who presided at the trial which ended in a death-sentence to make a written report of the case, and was authorized to cause the judge to be specially summoned. To that objection had been taken in Victoria, namely by Higinbotham C.J., who objected to being summoned except by the Executive Council! Sir John Downer, on behalf of South Australia, considered that it would be very inconvenient in a small community like that to throw upon the ministers the responsibility of deciding with regard to capital sentences. Sir Robert Wisdom and Sir Patrick Jennings were of opinion that in New South Wales a change was not desirable, and Mr. Adye Douglas considered that no alteration should be made as far as Tasmania was concerned. Sir Samuel Griffith thought that the principle of treating differently the case of the pre- rogative of mercy and other executive actions was an anomaly, and he also criticized the instruction to the Governor then contained in the instructions, to place on record his reasons if he decided a case in opposition to the judgement of the majority of the Executive Council, on the ground that the Governor should treat the Council collectively and not as individual members. But he considered that the anomaly should be retained for the present, because the nature of the cases of life and death which occasionally arose was such that it was eminently advisable for the Colonies to have the ! In the Morgan case in 1884. 19743

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