ABSTRACT
THE difficulty of appreciating the existing constitutional practice in relation to the Australian States and the Canadian Provinces is accentuated by the fact that it is mainly upon very old precedents that the leading work upon the subject (that of Todd) was based. It has also to be remembered that Todd’s work was in many respects controversial in character. He was concerned in rebutting the theory that the political functions of the Crown have been ‘wholly obliterated wherever a “parliamentary government” has been established’. 1 He regarded the office of Colonial Governor as that of a superintendent, and ‘endeavoured to point out the beneficial effects resulting to the whole community from the exercise of this superintending office’. 2 He conceded that his work would express opinions upon the constitutional precedents different from those entertained by Canadian statesmen taking part in their consideration and settlement, 3 and, as he anticipated, his work ‘evoked much personal abuse’. 4 Moreover, Todd’s view, like that of his son, was suspicious of ‘the levelling spirit so characteristic of the age’. 5
