1414 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI 
In 1909 in Western Australia the condemnation of a 
murderess raised much excitement; the question was 
raised in Parliament by the Opposition, and, on the refusal 
of the Government to reprieve, a deputation waited on the 
Governor, who, after receiving the advice of ministers, 
declined on their advice to exercise the prerogative. The 
occasion was taken for making clear the responsibility of 
ministers for the action taken! In New South Wales the 
advent of the Labour Government to office in 1910 was 
followed by very vehement discussions of the exercise by 
them of the prerogative of mercy in the case of a murderer, 
and in cases of strike leaders, with the result that in the 
Criminal Appeal Bill of 1911 an attempt, severely censured 
by the Opposition, was made to refer death sentences for 
recommendation to a council of judges. whose view would 
have practically been final. 
It may be added that it has been held in Victoria? that 
a free pardon does not remove the criminal stain, or exempt 
a criminal so pardoned from punishment under an Act to 
prevent the influx of criminals. 
In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia on its forma- 
tion the Canadian model was formed : that is, the letters 
patent ignore the subject in toto, and it is relegated to the 
instructions, where the whole of the old clause of the letters 
patent and that of the instructions is run into one; that 
does not matter, for the royal instructions and the letters 
patent are only two different modes of signifying the royal 
pleasure in prerogative matters, and except by statute or 
usage there is no ground to ascribe more sanctity to one than 
to the other; indeed the exercise of the prerogative could 
clearly be delegated by dispatch just as its exercise is in 
particular cases regulated by dispatch. The terms of the 
new instruction run as follows — 
t For South Australia, see Legislative Council Debates, 1910, p. 450. For 
Western Australia see West Australian, October 6, 1909; Debates, pp. 806-29. 
t See Parliamentary Debates, 1910, Sess. 2, pp. 41, 704; 1911, pp. 1295 
seq., 1316 seq. ; Sydney Bulletin, August 10, 1911. 
3 Ryall v. Kenealy, 6 W. W. & A’B. (1.) 193, at pp. 206, 207.