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

1444 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART viI any interference of the Crown, which has no direct con- cern with non-established Churches, but if consecrated in England the consent of the Crown is requisite, and this applies also to those bishops who are consecrated for service in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. In such cases it would still be possible, by the legislative power of the Crown, to provide bishops with coercive jurisdiction, but the principle has been steadily observed that bishops should not be given coercive jurisdiction even where?! the Crown has power to confer it. It was under consideration after 1791, when the King was empowered to make the Upper Houses in the Canadas hereditary and to annex titles of honour to seats in it, and the Law Officers of the Crown were asked, whether the Bishop of Nova Scotia could not be given a permanent seat in the Upper House, but the whole project fell through, and the Law Officers evidently thought that as far as the bishop was concerned the idea was not legally practicable. It used, however, to be the custom as a matter of course to give the bishop for the time being a seat in the Legislative Councils of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? and an Act of New Brunswick of 1852 which purported to deprive him of such a seat was disallowed as an interference with the royal prerogative The bishops were all nominated on the nominee councils which preceded responsible government in the Australian Colonies, and their influence and authority was unquestionably very great. But their position was com- pletely changed on the introduction of responsible govern- ment, though for a long time thev retained. and to some * It could be done in places falling under the British Settlements Act, 1887 (Gold Coast, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Southern Nigeria, Falkland Islands), in St. Helena (cf. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85), in Ceylon, Fiji, Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Trinidad, St. Lucia, Mauritius, Seychelles, British Guiana (con- guered or ceded Colonies), in Jamaica (29 & 30 Viet. c. 12), in Grenada and St. Vincent (39 & 40 Vict. c. 47 probably authorizes this) and the Straits (29 & 30 Vict. e¢. 115). It could not be done in the Leeward Islands or Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, British Honduras, or Turk’s Island. He only once sat there, in 1825; see Hannay, New Brunswick, i. 407. Parl. Pap., H. C. 529, 1864, p. 35.

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