Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:35:56.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Appointment of the Governor General: Responsible Government, Autonomy, and the Royal Prerogative*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

J. R. Mallory
J. R. Mallory*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access

Extract

The public face of events is often very different from their true inward nature. Sometimes it is possible so to arrange things that the real facts have been wholly concealed and a harmless but false conclusion is drawn from events. The appointment of John Buchan as Governor General of Canada in 1935 is a case in point. MacGregor Dawson, like everybody else, drew a conclusion from that appointment which can now be shown to differ from the actual constitutional lesson which emerges from the evidence. He said: “Mr. Bennett stated in 1936 that when Lord Tweedsmuir's name was being considered, he, as Prime Minister, first discussed the matter with Mr. Mackenzie King, the Leader of the Opposition, so that the Governor's appointment was in effect quite non-partisan in character inasmuch as it carried the approval of the leaders of both major parties.”

This arrangement of bi-partisan recommendation, he said, “may prove to be an accepted practice.” Whatever its practical advantages, a moment's reflection will show that it is hardly in accord with the theory of responsible government. Furthermore, the events which led up to this particular appointment were far more complex, and lead inescapably to a rather different set of conclusions.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 96 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I have to acknowledge the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen to make use of material from the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle.

References

1 The Government of Canada (Toronto, 1954), 174.Google Scholar

2 Quoted in MacNutt, W. Stewart, Impressions of a Governor-General (Fredericton, 1955), 223.Google Scholar Macdonald's letter was in reply to one from Lome dated May 17, 1883, in which Lome had discussed a possible successor and said, “I am also all in favour of the Dominion Government of the day being consulted on the nomination of the GG.” P.A.C., Pope Papers, Macdonald Biography, vol. 28.

3 Keith, A. Berriedale, The Dominions as Sovereign States (London, 1938), 207.Google Scholar

4 Nicolson, Harold, King George V (London, 1952), 478.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 479.

6 Ibid., 481.

7 Royal Archives, G.V., L. 1615.

8 Ibid. It would appear from the Meighen Papers that the original Canadian objection to Lord Byng arose simply from a preference for a civilian over a military personage. Mr. Meighen had urged the Duke of Devonshire to remain for a further period, apparently to enable the appointment to be delayed until the summer when he would be in England and able to discuss the matter in person at the Colonial Office. This was not possible and accordingly agreement was reached on Lord Byng. I am indebted to Professor W. R. Graham of the University of Saskatchewan for this information.

9 In general, political appointments, even of dominion governors general, were considered to be in the hands of the minister concerned. Accordingly these appointments were settled direct between the colonial secretary and the king. An exception to this rule was the viceroy of India, whose appointment was advised by the prime minister. Jennings, W. I., Cabinet Government (London, 1947), 342.Google Scholar

10 “As you of course know, the Prime Minister and Mr. Mackenzie King are in most happy agreement as to the spirit and manner in which to approach the question of selecting a successor to Lord Byng as Governor General of Canada, and an understanding has accordingly existed between them that as soon as conveniently possible the names of certain persons should be sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Mackenzie King whom, if acceptable to him, the King would be prepared to consider for the appointment.” The names of Mr. Baldwin's three nominees followed. R.A., G.V., L. 2057.

11 Sir Clive Wigram was Assistant Private Secretary to King George V (1910–31). On Lord Stamfordham's death in 1931, he became Private Secretary.

12 R.A., G.V., P. 633.

13 This incident is described in SirWheeler-Bennett's, John King George VI: His Life and Reign (London, 1958), 254.Google Scholar Wheeler-Bennett's conclusion—“the King, in duty bound, followed the counsel of his constitutional advisers of the day”—is questionable. The fact that the Imperial Conference of 1930 confirmed that the king had more than one set of constitutional advisers was hard to assimilate. Clearly in this case Thomas had no right to advise the King, for this was Mr. Bennett's privilege.

14 Lord Stamfordham recognized that this was the result in part of a faulty approach. On February 13 he prepared a memorandum for file which said, “Looking forward to future appointments of Governors General, I wish to record that it would have been better had I not written to … and the Duke of Abercorn as I did, offering them in the King's name the appointment of Governor-General: but instead had I written as I did to Lord Bess-borough, i.e. ‘The King desires me to approach you as to whether you would be prepared to accept the Governor-Generalship of Canada if it were offered to you’. Had I done this it would have been impossible for the Duke of Abercon to have published the fact that the offer had been made and declined by him.' R.A., G.V., L. 2314.

15 See Mallory, J. R., “Seals and Symbols: From Substance to Form in Commonwealth Equality,” this Journal, XXII, no. 3, Aug., 1956, 281–91Google Scholar, where the constitutional implications of this change are considered in detail.

16 When Lord Bessborough's appointment was being considered, Lord Stamfordham used the transatlantic telephone for the first time in his life. Mr. Bennett, at the other end, thought he said Desborough (then well over eighty), whom he rightly thought a bit old for the job. A good deal of confusion ensued. So the telephone did not greatly facilitate matters. This may have prompted Lord Stamfordham, in writing to Mr. Bennett on February 10, to discuss the role of the telegram and the telephone in government: “Custom has recognized the authority of a telegram. I remember when Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister and the telephone was introduced, his telling me that he declined to accept any message by telephone, as there was nothing to vouch for its genuineness, but there was not that objection in a telegram. No doubt his Lordship would have come on with the times and no longer refused to listen to telephonic calls: but when it comes to the King's Prime Ministers in the Dominions dealing with matters which at home are dealt with by personal discussion between the Prime Minister and His Majesty, I doubt the possibility, or may venture to say the propriety, of His Majesty's being expected to hold telephonic communication, for there could be no guarantee as to the authenticity of the speakers.” R.A., G.V., L. 2314. Even in this matter the Palace has had to move with the times.

17 R.A., G.V., L. 2314.

18 One of the strangest examples of the survival of outmoded ideas in this matter is a remark made by Sir Winston Churchill as recently as 1952: “The fact that he is a field-marshal was not considered any obstacle to Lord Alexander's appointment and tenure, prolonged tenure, under the party opposite, of the office of Governor-General of Canada.” 495 H.C. Deb. 5 s., col. 193, Jan. 30, 1952.

19 R.A., G.V., L. 2463. This is also the source of section II of this paper, with the exceptions that are noted.

20 Wheeler-Bennett, , King George VI, 544 ff.Google Scholar

21 For a discussion of this point see Mallory, J. R., “The Election and the Constitution,” Queens Quarterly, LXIV, no. 4, p. 465.Google Scholar

22 To this attitude, it should be said, Mr. Bennett was clearly an exception, and there were others. But on the whole the role of the governor-general had diminished to the point that his role in the day-to-day business of government was very different from that of the king.