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.

ADDENDA 1627 view urged in Harvey v. Lord Aylmer The Petition of Right Act? of Canada makes no distinction between claims arising in Quebec against the Federal Government and other claims, and expressly contemplates the bringing of such claims in Quebec,3 while at the same time it limits the cases in which petitions can be brought to cases such as could be brought in England in 1860,% and it expressly preserves existing remedies? The evidence against a petition of right lying in Quebec is thus reduced to the very unjudicial dictum of one judge in a case decided on other grounds, in which another judge asserted its existence. The question is never likely to come for decision, as St. Lucia has adopted a Crown Suits Ordinance in 19117 which gives a similar remedy to the English petition of right, and British Guiana adopted a similar ordinance in 1904. Pace 1460. As the distinction drawn above between the case of a Governor and the King has been questioned it may be as well to state the position as regards the King according to recent prece- dents. It has been sufficiently shown above that the powers of refusing a dissolution and of compelling the resignation of ministers still exist in the case of a Governor, even if many considerations require that they should be used with caution. It is admitted that both in the case of the Governor and in the case of the King a dissolu- tion of Parliament without the advice of ministers is an impossi- bility. In the early years of Queen Victoria's reign it is clear that she took the view that she had a discretion as to granting a dissolution and that the grant was in the nature of an appeal to the country on behalf of ministers, and one which ought not to be used except in extreme cases and with a certainty of success? But in 1858, when Lord Derby asked her permission to say that, if a vote of ensure were carried against him in the Commons, Parliament would be dissolved. Queen Victoria consulted Lord Aberdeen. and Lord t Stuart, 542, at p. 551. 2 See 38 Vict. e. 12; 39 Vict. c. 27; Rev. Stat., 1886, c. 136 ; 1906, c. 142. 7. for a claim in respect of Quebec, R. v. Beileau, 7 App. Cas. 473. 3 38 Vict. c. 12,8. 17. The Exchequer Court became the only court normally used for this purpose by 39 Vict. c. 27. ¢ 38 Viet. ¢. 12, 8. 8; 39 Vict. c. 27,5. 19; Rev. Stat., 1886, c. 136, 8. 21 (3); in 1906, c. 142, this disappears, because the law was extended by 50 & 51 Vict. e. 16, s. 16 (c) to cover cases of claim in tort. 5 38 Viet. c. 12, 8. 21 (3); 39 Vict. c. 27, s. 19; Rev. Stat., 1886, c. 136, 8. 21 (2). s Laporte v. The Principal Officers of Artillery, 7 L. C. R. 486. See Clode, Petition of Right, pp. 37-9. The case is of no real value. Cf. in Upper Canada, Tully v. The Principal Officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance, 5 U. C. Q. B. 6, where the case likewise failed, although a petition of right certainly could have been brought there. ? No. 1 of 1911. Compare, however, s. 2025 of the Civil Code, which recog- aizes the petition of right to the King recognized in the Quebec Civil Code, 3. 2211. In Fiji claims against the Crown are brought in the Supreme Court by action against the Attorney-General without a fiat; see Marks v. Attorney- General, 1875-97 F. L. R. 219, at p. 226. 8 Letters of Queen Victoria, ii. 91.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation