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 VIII. Imperial unity and imperial co-operation

Collection:: Economics Books

SHAP. I] THE UNITY OF THE EMPIRE 1455 On the other hand, the difficulties of this doctrine are very great internationally ; there can be but one nationality as long as the Empire remains united, and on what criterion could separate nationalities be devised within the Empire ? Is a New Zealander to be excluded from privileges offered by treaties to British subjects generally, and if so, what consti- tutes him a New Zealander? There are various criteria possible ; it might be birth, or residence, or domicile ; it is impossible to say that any one is a satisfactory basis on which to go, and in many cases there would be great doubt as to which was the proper principle. Yet, if no principle were framed, the plan could not work, while if residence or domicile were adopted as the line of division, a man might be often changing his nationality. It is indeed clear that allegiance to one Crown is the common bond, and that as nationalities there is no future for the conceptions of Canadian, Australian, &c., if these Dominions desire to form parts of the Empire. It is also clear that at the back of all the diversity of the Crown, which enables us to distinguish between the Crown in its various manifestations—so that the Crown in South Australia and the Crown in Victoria can engage in a dispute before the Courts as to the boundaries of the states in question, and the Crown in the states can be taxed in respect of its property by the Crown under the Commonwealth Parliament 1—there is a very real sense in which the Crown remains a single personality. In foreign affairs this unity is perfect; no foreign Power dreams of approaching a Dominion Government to demand redress or to ask for reference to arbitration. It is of course always open for a foreign Power through its consular representatives to make friendly requests to a Dominion, as for example with regard to immigration matters, which were dealt with in part direct * The King v. Sutton, 5 C. L. R. 789; Municipal Council of Sydney v. Commonwealth of Australia, 1 C. L. R. 208 ; The State of New South Wales v. The Commonwealth of Australia, 7 C.L. R. 179; and passim in C. L. R. The same principle has recently received emphatic approval by the Privy Council in The Dominion of Canada v. The Province of Ontario, [1910] A. C. 637. A 0 ny

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