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 VII. The Church in the dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

car. 1] THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS 1431 Henry VIII. c. 19, regulating appeals to the Crown in eccle- siastical causes, it was enacted that for lack of justice in any of the King’s dominions it should be lawful to the parties grieved to appeal to the King’s Majesty in the Court of Chancery, an enactment which gave rise to the Commis- sion of Delegates for which the Judicial Committee was substituted by an Act of 1832. Moreover, in any case, by the Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41, Her Majesty had power to refer to the Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration any matter whatsoever as Her Majesty should think fit, and on June 10, 1864, by an Order in Council the petition of the appellant was referred to the Committee. It will be observed that this judgement bases the denial of power to create a bishopric upon the grant of an indepen- dent Legislature to the Cape and to Natal. Moreover, it is clear throughout the judgement that a Crown Colony was deemed by the Privy Council to be one in which the King retains his power to legislate by Order in Council. In the case of Natal they did not advert to the fact that the Legis- lature was, unlike that of the Cape of Good Hope, not a representative body, and it is possible that this point had escaped their notice. It is also possible that they assumed that the letters patent establishing a Legislature of Natal could not be revoked, as they contained no power of revoca- tion. It would seem certain, both on grounds of unbroken practice and of principle that the decision must be restricted in law to cases where a representative Legislature existed ; this indeed is clearly the basis of Campbell v. Hall! and, moreover, as it is clearly the case from the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, that a non-representative Legislature cannot alter its Constitution,2 Natal would have been unable to change its Constitution at all, if this dictum of the Privy Council applied to non-representative Legislatures. As a t 20 St. Tr. 239. * Inorder to allow British Columbia to do so an Imperial Act, 33 & 34 Vict, c. 66, was passed, then by an Order in Council under it of August 9, 1870, a legislative body of nine elective and six nominee members was created, and it altered its Constitution (see the preamble to British Columbia Law, No. 147, 1871).

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