CHAPTER III 
REPUGNANCY OF COLONTAL LAWS 
THE second great ground on which Colonial legislation 
may be invalid is that of repugnancy to English law. The 
rule used always to be that an Act of a Colonial legis- 
lature must not be repugnant to English law? and the 
exact force of this term was wrapped in decent obscurity : 
few cases ever rose upon the point, and they were easily 
disposed of. But the whole question received a new impor- 
tance when Mr. Benjamin Boothby was appointed a judge 
of the Supreme Court of South Australia. He promptly 
began to enunciate a series of doctrines which, though in 
part neutralized by the presence in the Colony of two other 
judges who did not in all points agree with him, were very 
awkward for all concerned in the administration of justice. 
Eventually the two Houses of the Parliament passed, as 
required by the Constitution Act, addresses for his removal, 
and the matter thus came before the Secretary of State for 
the Colonies. 
The judge’s views 2 are interesting because they show the 
high-water mark of distrust of Colonial law. He asserted that 
the Court was called upon to examine into the validity of the 
Acts which it was required to interpret : the Select Committee 
of the Legislative Council which examined him to ascertain 
his views differed from him in this regard, but the Select 
' The Constitution of New Zealand still contains this formal rule 
(15 & 16 Vict. c. 72, s. 53), and as regards South Australia and Tasmania, 
see 13 & 14 Viet. c. 59,8. 14. Cf. Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q. B. 717. 
* Parl. Pap., August 1862. An Act, 6 Vict. c. 22, gave power to Colonial 
egislatures to pass laws regarding the admission of evidence of persons who 
sould not take a Christian oath, but this was not considered a ground for 
admitting the validity of a law of Hong Kong in 1857 altering the law 
regarding perjury ; Forsyth. Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, 
n. 23,