Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. I] THE TENURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICES 1341 As the provisions of Burke's Act are not yet entirely obsolete, in theory at least, it may be well to state briefly what their effect is. The Act was passed, as appears clearly from the preamble and the circumstances in which it was ®nacted, to put an end to the practice of officers who had received appointments by patent in the Colonies performing their duties by deputy and staying in England. It was intended that they should act in their offices unless granted leave by the Governor in Council. But their offices were to remain like other patent offices, quasi-freehold, from which shey could not be removed except on the ground of mis- conduct, and power of amotion with a right of appeal to the Privy Council was given by that Act to the Governors in Council. Ut is not certain whether the intention of the Act was to apply only to offices granted by patents issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, or whether it was intended bo apply also to officers appointed under the Great Seal of the several Colonies.! The Act was not limited in its operation to judicial officers, and as a matter of fact, both modes of appointment were known at the time when it was passed, and it may be that it was within the intention, or if not within the intention within the wording, of the Act as passed to include all offices held by patent, whether that patent might be one passed under the Great Seal in this country or passed under the Great Seal of the Colony. It has, however, been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a case which was actually before them for decision, that the power of the Governor in Council to amove ail officer was not affected by right to appeal under Burke’s Act if the officer held at pleasure? and it would appear clearly ' The point is not taken in any case, and is not noticed by the Privy Uouncilin their minutes on Sir F. Rogers's memorandum of 1870 ; see Parl. Pap., C. 139; 6 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.), App. IX. In Montagu v. Lieutenant- Rovernor of Van Diemen’s Land, 6 Moo. P. C. 489, the patent of Montagu was an English one. But see also Willis v. Sir George Gipps, 5 Moo. P. C, 379, and Boothby’s patent was a South Australian one. * Bx parte Robertson, 11 Moo. P. C. 288. Mr. Robertson was only a “ommissioner of Crown Lands, not a judge. 19%

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation