The Governor of Victoria, having objected to two Bills passed by Parliament in the 1850s, received advice from the colonial government to refuse assent to them. These are the only occasions on which the Royal assent has been refused locally in Victoria, and one of the very few such incidents in Australian history. One of the Bills would have implied a statement that UK law of the day was incompatible with religious liberty, and thus raised sectarian and Imperial complications; the other was a co…
Read moreThe Governor of Victoria, having objected to two Bills passed by Parliament in the 1850s, received advice from the colonial government to refuse assent to them. These are the only occasions on which the Royal assent has been refused locally in Victoria, and one of the very few such incidents in Australian history. One of the Bills would have implied a statement that UK law of the day was incompatible with religious liberty, and thus raised sectarian and Imperial complications; the other was a constitutional amendment passed without following the prescribed procedure. This article reconstructs the events and the public reaction, as far as possible; considers whether the Governor acted rightly; and concludes that the Crown should refuse assent if advised to do so by its Ministers, despite occasional views to the contrary.
