car. Iv] THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY 1397 
observes, the minister in a Colony cannot be looked upon as 
occupying the same position in regard of the Queen’s preroga- 
tive of pardon as the Home Secretary in this country. The 
Governor, like the Home Secretary, is personally selected by 
the Sovereign as the depositary of this prerogative, which is 
not alienated from the Crown by any general delegation, but 
only confided as a matter of high trust to those individuals 
whom the Crown commissions for the purpose. Actually, 
therefore, as well as formally, the Governor will continue to 
be, as he has hitherto been in New South Wales and in other 
Colonies, the person ultimately responsible for the exercise 
of the prerogative. But this is quite consistent with the 
further duty expressly imposed upon him, of consulting his 
ministers, or minister, before he acts. 
3. While, therefore, the rule of procedure now adopted is 
correct, it seems necessary to point out that in the last three 
paragraphs of your minute, you go somewhat too far in 
laying down that the exercise of the prerogative of pardon, 
even in minor cases, is a ‘ branch of local administration ’, 
in regard of which the responsibility formally attached to 
the Governor can practically be transferred to his advisers. 
4. Not only is it necessary, as has already been observed, 
that the power given specially by the Sovereign should be 
exercised only by the person to whom it is given, but the duty 
of a Governor to the Imperial Government renders it neces- 
sary that he should himself decide whether, in any case brought 
before him, the exercise of the prerogative involves questions 
affecting the interests of persons or places beyond the Colony, 
or in any other respect not purely Colonial. 
5. In the case of Gardiner, from which, although it is not 
directly referred to in your dispatch now under notice, the 
present question has of course arisen, a point came up for 
consideration, which was obviously in no sense one for the 
final decision of the ministers of New South Wales, or of any 
one Colony, however large and important. It was proposed 
and decided to pardon the criminal on condition of his leaving 
the Colony, and remaining absent from it, under the Act 
11 Vict. c. 34, the provisions of which, in respect of the power 
of exiling criminals, have been sparingly used, and, as I have 
elsewhere stated, ought to be practically obsolete. The 
effect upon neighbouring Colonies, the Empire generally, 
or foreign countries, of letting loose a highly criminal or 
dangerous felon to reside in any part of the world except 
only that principally concerned to take charge of him, was a 
step which might clearly and not unreasonably give rise to