1344 . THE JUDICIARY [PART VI 
asserting that his removal was absolutely necessary, the 
other from the Lower House declaring that through his action 
public confidence in his administration of the law of the 
province was destroyed. The Law Officers were referred to 
for advice as to whether the Queen could dismiss Mr. Boothby 
on the strength of the addresses sent home, and whether she 
had a discretion in the matter ; also whether, if removal were 
decided upon, it should be on the grounds that the Legislature 
must be assumed to have acted with reason, or on the grounds 
disclosed in the evidence taken before the committees of the 
Houses and their report; it was also asked if any appeal would 
lie from a dismissal, and if the fact that there had been two 
addresses instead of one, as called for in the exact wording 
of the Act, would make any difference. The law officers 
advised that there was no objection to separate addresses 
or to the absence of specific charges in the addresses, pro- 
vided that the Queen was satisfied that ground existed for 
dismissal —the Crown had always a discretion to remove or 
not in consequence of such an address ; but removal would 
be quite justified if, owing to a judge’s perversity or 
habitual disregard of judicial propriety, the administration 
of justice were practically obstructed; no appeal to the 
Privy Council would lie, and in this case they did not recom- 
mend dismissal because the difficulties which had arisen 
were to some extent real, in view of the Governor assenting 
to Acts which should have been reserved, and in addition, 
strictly speaking, the Houses when they passed the addresses 
were not lawfully constituted, owing to the invalidity of the 
Electoral Act, No. 10 of 1856, under which they were elected, 
although that defect was cured by an enactment ex post 
facto validating all the acts of the Legislature. 
In the case of the Crown Colonies one mode of removal, 
which was approved in 1870 by the Judicial Committee of 
the Privy Council? and has been very convenient, was that 
t See Parl. Pap., August 1862; above, Part III, chap. iii. In 1866 
another attempt to remove him by address failed, the Privy Council 
agreeing with the Law Officers, and he was therefore in 1867 amoved by the 
Governor in Council ; South Australia Parl. Pap., 1867, Nos. 22, 23, 41. 
v Parl. Pap., C. 139.