404 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III
Electoral Act, No. 10 of 1856, under which the Legislative
Council and House of Assembly were elected should have
been reserved under the Imperial Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59,
s. 32, and they laid it down that all the Acts passed by
these bodies were therefore invalid. Accordingly, an Act,
25 & 26 Vict. c. 11, was hastily passed to validate ex post
facto the laws of South Australia.
Then various questions were put to the law officers of the
Crown and answered by them with great care : the questions
and answers were as follows :—
L. Is the Supreme Court of South Australia bound, and
at liberty to inquire into the validity of an Act passed by
the Colonial Legislature, and assented to either by the
Queen in Council, or by the Governor in behalf of Her
Majesty, and in the case of an Act assented to by the
Governor, does the fact that such an Act has, or has not,
been left to its operation by Her Majesty make any differance
 respecting its validity ?
2. Supposing the judge at liberty to pronounce on the
validity of a Colonial Act, is he to pronounce such an Act
invalid, if its provisions be, in his opinion, inconsistent with
those of an Imperial Statute intended by the British Parliament
 to extend to the Colonies in general, or to South
Australia in particular ?
3. Is he to pronounce such an Act invalid, if its provisions
be, in his opinion, contrary to the principles of British law
which he deems fundamental, as by denying the sovereignty
of Her Majesty, by allowing slavery or polygamy, by prohibiting
 Christianity, by authorizing the infliction of punishment
 without trial, or the uncontrolled destruction of
aborigines, &c. ?
4. Is he to pronounce such an Act invalid if its provisions
oe different from those which are in fact prescribed in respect
of the same matter by British statutes in force in England,
though not properly to be described as fundamental principles
of British law, e. g., if the Colonial Act abolished grand juries,
or allowed offences to be tried by a magistrate for which
a jury is required in England, or dispensed with the unanimity
 of a jury, or varied the numbers of a jury, or altered
the laws of evidence or the law of primogeniture, or introduced
 modes of transfering real property unknown to the
British law ?
5. If the first of the two preceding questions is to be