cap. Iv] THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY 1395 
tives of like kind had been left to the representative of the 
Crown, there might have been some grounds for retaining 
also in the same hands the exclusive exercise of the preroga- 
tive of pardon. But when everything else has been conceded 
to the responsible advisers, it seems too absurd to suppose 
that the question of letting out this or that criminal should 
be the one thing not entrusted to them. . . . 
In the present constitutional stage it is obvious that as 
regards all purely local matters, ministers must be trusted 
‘not at all, or all in all °. 
It appears to me, too, that the plan determined on meets 
all the requirements specified in Lord Granville’s and Lord 
Kimberley’s dispatches on this subject. The papers in 
every case will be laid before the Governor for his decision. 
He will thus have an opportunity of considering whether any 
Imperial interest or policy is involved, or whether his 
personal intervention is called for on any other grounds. 
If there should be no such necessity he would, of course, as 
desired by Lord Kimberley, ‘ pay due regard to the advice 
of his ministers who are responsible to the Colony for the 
proper administration of justice and the prevention of crime.’ 
Mr. Parkes, I think, pushes his argument against the 
change too far when he implies that the refusal of the 
Governor to accept the advice of the minister in any case of 
pardon would necessarily involve his resignation. Of course, 
theoretically, such a view is correct, but I need scarcely point 
out, that in the practical transaction of business ministers 
do not tender their resignations upon every trivial difference 
of opinion between themselves and the Governor. . . . 
1 trust that your Lordship will approve of the plan which 
I have adopted, with the consent of the Government, and 
the entire concurrence of Parliament, for dealing with 
applications for the mitigation of sentences in cases which 
are not provided for by the royal instructions. I may add, 
that I have learned since the matter was disposed of here, 
that the new system is, in effect, similar to the practice in 
force in the neighbouring Colonies. In New Zealand the 
practice, I am informed, is precisely similar to that now 
established in New South Wales; whilst in Queensland, 
South Australia, and Tasmania, recommendations for miti- 
gations of sentences are brought before the Executive 
Council by a minister, which, of course, places the responsi- 
bility for the decision arrived at directly upon the Govern- 
ment. As regards Victoria I have not as yet received a 
reply to an inquiry which I have addressed to Sir George