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.