728 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART 1v
verted the argument of the Secretary of State : he pointed
out that from their local character the Acts were essentially
those which did not require intervention onImperial grounds:
and he laid stress on the fact that as the Queen could only
disallow by Order in Council so the Governor-General must
disallow by that means: if ministers wished to disallow
they should resign if they wished to do so while the Governor
refused, and conversely, if he desired to disallow he must
obtain a Cabinet which would agree to his proposed action.
The case of pardon was essentially different, and no doubt
might include serious Imperial interests. The report was
approved on February 29, 1876, and was forwarded on
April 6, 1876, to the Secretary of State. Ina reply of June 1,
1876, the Secretary of State intimated that in his view the
use of the term Governor-General in s. 90, and not Governor-
General in Council, was a sign of throwing personal responsi-
bility on the Governor-General : otherwise the whole effect
of the reservation of independent power to the provinces
would be gone if the Dominion could deal as it pleased with
their legislation. The matter could only be decided by the
Privy Council. To this Mr. Blake replied that the omission
of the words ‘in Council’ was for brevity and to avoid
repetition, for else the power to disallow would be given to
the Governor-General in Council. As to the argument of
substance, it might at best be an argument for the alteration
of the law, but even as that it was not conclusive, for the
provinces were well able to punish any conduct infringing on
their interests by the Dominion Government, and this was
a much better safeguard against unsatisfactory legislation
than an independent judgement on the part of the Governor-
General, or his acting on instructions from home. The
Secretary of State in a dispatch of October 31, 1876, still
maintained his view, and suggested that if the Governor-
General consulted his ministers he would be acting under
their advice as laid down in the Lord President’s letter,
though not according to their advice. In reply, Mr. Blake
declined to accept the view that a man acted under advice
when he rejected it, and pressed for the recognition that in
