[30 THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL. 
Vor Bpate statute, and by the Instructions accompanying his Commission, 
yet he does not enjoy the privilege of complete exemption from 
legal liability. For all acts done under and within the limits 
of the authority confided to him the representative of the 
Sovereign is protected, “because in doing them he is the 
servant of the Crown and is exercising its sovereign autho- 
rity’;” and hence, where an action was brought against the 
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for an alleged illegal seizure 
of property, the Irish Court of Common Pleas held, that as 
the act complained of was an act of state done by the Lord 
Lieutenant as such, the action would not lie? 
On this principle the Governor of a Colony may be 
Justified in case of rebellion, or exceptional disturbance, in 
resorting to a proclamation of martial law, ie. in assuming 
absolute power and exercising it by military force, but such 
power must be exercised bond fide for the purpose of main- 
taining the safety of the colony and with reasonable modera- 
bion under the circumstances. Any abuse of such power will 
render the governor criminally and civilly liable®. ’ 
For Acts For acts which are beyond the authority confided to 
i Within him the Governor of a colony is responsible. “Such acts 
authority. though the Governor may assume to do them as Governor 
cannot be considered as done on behalf of the Crown nor to 
be in any proper sense acts of State. When questions of the 
kind arise it must necessarily be within the province of 
municipal Courts to determine the true character of the acts 
done by a Governor, though it may be that when it is 
established that the particular act in question is really an act 
of state policy done under the authority of the Crown, the 
defence is complete and the Court can take no further cog- 
nizance of £47” 
L Per P. C. in Musgrave v. Pulido, 5 App. Cas. 102, 49 L. J, P. C. 20. 
* Luby v. Lord Wodehouse, 17 Ir. Com. L. R. 618, 
? See Wright v. Fitzgerald, 27 St. Tr. 765. Report of R. v. Eyre by 
Finlason: Broom’s Constitutional Law, 2nd Ed. p. 653. 
4 P. C. in Musarave v. Pulido, 5 App. Cas. 102, 49 L.. J. P. C. 20.