No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
The adaptability of the British form of cabinet government to local conditions in many lands is illustrated in a unique fashion in Prince Edward Island. The same type of executive which governs in the large and populous parts of the Commonwealth has developed in miniature in the tiny and isolated province which boasts a land area of only 2,184 square miles and a population of little more than 93,000 persons; and, on the whole, it has worked extremely well. Broadly speaking, most of the principles associated with cabinet government elsewhere are recognized in theory on the Island. The familiar steps in the development of responsible government have taken place in much the same way as in other provinces. The idea is generally accepted that the Cabinet is a team operating on the basic principles of mutual confidence and solidarity among its members, collective responsibility to the Crown and to the legislature, and popular endorsation through the electoral machinery and the political party. The peculiarities of cabinet government in Prince Edward Island lie not in the principles, but in the way some of the principles have been altered, sometimes almost beyond recognition, to meet local conditions and political expediencies, and in the occasional reversion to colonial practices which have long been considered extinct. These features are manifest in the Cabinet's composition, procedure, solidarity and responsibility, and judicial functions.
This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Halifax, June 9, 1949.
1 Legislative Assembly Act, 4 Geo. VI (1940), c. 37, s. 32.
2 Mr. Campbell served in this capacity until the general election of the following year when, in order to seek a seat, he had to resign since the election laws prohibited him from running while a salaried officer not of the Cabinet. He could, of course, have been reappointed to the Cabinet and have run as a minister.
3 The reason for this departure from the usual practice was the fact that there was only one lawyer on the government side of the House and the premier did not see fit to appoint him.
4 The Guardian, Charlottetown, 03 17, 1945.Google Scholar
5 See Heeney, A. D. P., “Cabinet Government in Canada” (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 08, 1946, p. 292).Google Scholar
6 Public Archives of Canada, Colonial Office Records (P.E.I.), A series, vol. 17-1, p. 72, Governor Fanning to Lord Hobart, Sept. 27, 1802.
7 39 Vic. (1876), c. 10; Assembly Debates, 1876, p. 128.Google Scholar
8 8 Geo. VI, c. 22.
9 The writer acknowledges the assistance of the provincial secretaries of the provinces in providing this information.
10 The complete set of minutes from 1770 to the present time is preserved in the Legislative Building, Charlottetown.
11 On one occasion, it is reported, voting even went so far as a secret ballot, an extraordinary procedure in a group based on mutual confidence and co-operation.
12 The general practice in the other provinces is for the premier to preside, and at the present time the premier of New Brunswick is the only one who has given the presidency of the Council to another. Such cases were common in earlier days. In the federal Cabinet, for example, there were nineteen cases from 1867 to 1921; indeed in Sir John Macdonald's day it was the general rule for the President of the Council to be someone other than the prime minister.
13 Lowell, A. Lawrence, The Government of England (London, 1912), vol. I, pp. 63–4.Google Scholar
14 The Patriot, Charlottetown, Proceedings of the Assembly for 03 31, 1939.Google Scholar
15 Canadian Annual Review, 1935–1936, p. 464 Google Scholar; 1937-8, p. 293.
16 Guardian, Apr. 11, 1945.
17 Globe and Mail, Toronto, Oct. 28, 1947.
18 Guardian, Mar. 30, 1946.
19 Ibid., Mar. 18, 1948.
20 Ibid., Feb. 29, 1946.
21 Ibid., Apr. 21, 1945.
22 Ibid., Apr. 16 and 18, 1945.
23 Ibid., Apr. 12, 1945.
24 Ibid., Apr. 5, 1947.
25 These cases and others are described in my note on “The Royal Assent in Prince Edward Island” (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, May, 1949).
26 5 Wm. IV, c. 10; Assembly Journals, 1835, p. 36.Google Scholar
27 See Royal Gazette (P.E.I.), vol. LXXI, no. 51, 12 22, 1945.Google Scholar
28 Assembly Journals, 1945, pp. 97–8Google Scholar; Guardian, Apr. 13, 1945.
29 (P.E.I.), Legislative Buildings, Charlottetown, Executive Council Minute Books, Sept. 6, 1945, p. 185; Royal Gazette (P.E.I.), Dec. 22, 1945.
30 For the Court's rules of practice and procedure, see Royal Gazette (P.E.I.), Dec. 22, 1945, schedules “B” and “C”.