oar. 1] THE TENURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICES 1343
ture for the removal of a judge, and therefore as the matter
is ultimately of local importance, it seems better that in this
case the Constitutions should provide, as in some cases they
do, that the power of removal is vested in the Governor-
General or Governor on address from the Houses of the
Legislature. The Governor in that case would undoubtedly
act in his usual manner, which is to follow the advice of his
ministers, unless some very clear Imperial interest were
involved, such an Imperial interest not of course being the
interest of the Imperial Government in the maintenance of
any particular judicial arrangements in the Colonies, but
the chance that the action would injuriously affect the
Empire as a whole.
Colonial instances of removal are as rare as at home. In
the Dominion of Canada three cases have been discussed in
which the removal of provincial judges has been considered.
In two cases, those of Quebec judges, Lafontaine! and
Loranger? a Committee of the House of Commons was
appointed, but its report showed that no adequate case
axisted for further proceedings ; in the case of Wood C.J. of
Manitoba,® a committee, though asked for, was not granted.
The whole question of the position of the Crown in those
cases in which the power of removal of judges is vested in
the Crown on the addresses of the Houses of Parliament,
and not in the Governor, was considered by the law officers
of the Crown in the case of Judge Boothby of South Australia,
whose removal was asked for by the two Houses of the Colony
on the ground of the confusion into which his extraordinary
views had thrown the Colonial administration and the course
of justice. On that occasion, though Mr. Boothby was
asked to appear and did appear before a committee appointed
by the Lower House to explain his views, the two Houses
merely sent up addresses, the one from the Upper House
5 398; 1869,
Canada House of Commons Journals, 1867-8, pp. 297, 344. 398
op. 135, 247, ]
Ibid., 1877, pp. 20, 23, 36, 132, 141, 158, App. op gives
Ibid., 1882, pp. 176, 192, 355 ; Sess. Pap., 1882, No. Loe
che C.J.’s defence : House of Commons Debates, 1882, pp. 12
io %n
