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%