Full text: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

622 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III 
The Assembly had claimed no more than the privileges of 
the House of Commons, but the Council had gone far 
beyond that. 
The Parliament of Canada had, after a long trial of an 
elective Upper House (from 1856 to 1867), returned to the 
system of nomination, which was a success in New Zealand, 
New South Wales, and Queensland. The system of nomina- 
tion would really be the proper solution of the difficulties 
in Victoria, but if an elective House were insisted upon he 
suggested that if a Bill were passed by the Assembly in two 
consecutive ordinary sessions and were twice rejected by 
the Council, then either the two Houses should sit together 
and the decision of an absolute majority should be final, or 
both Houses should be liable under certain conditions to be 
dissolved. 
On February 17, 18791 the Secretary of State replied, re- 
viewing at large the arguments of the Governor in favour of 
his conduct. He still was of opinion that he should not have 
consented to the removal of the judicial and civil officials. 
Refusal to remove would not necessarily have involved the 
removal of the ministers or their resignation ; the ministers 
had been induced by him partially to retrace their steps, 
and he might have succeeded by pressure in securing that 
they should not adopt the proposal which they finally 
adopted. 
In a dispatch of December 2, 1878, the Governor sent to 
the Secretary of State a petition to the Queen from the late 
Chief Engineer of Water Supply, who had been dismissed 
from the service in the financial crisis. His ministers were 
prepared, as a result of pressure which he had brought 
to bear upon them, to offer to the officer one year’s salary 
and allowance if he withdrew. the petition, although he was 
entitled to only £582. It was the duty, in his opinion, of 
Mr. Gordon to bring his case before the local legislature, 
which could vote him further compensation and could censure 
ministers for their conduct towards him. His Government 
were satisfied that Mr. Gordon had no legal grounds for the 
\ Parl. Pap., C. 2217, p. 75. t Parl. Pap., C. 2339, p. 1.
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.