cuap. 1] THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR 109
phatically ’ lie against the Governor. His judgment proceeds
to show, in a passage bearing materially on the point now
under discussion, in what way a defence to such an action
might be made. He says, ‘ If he has acted right according
to the authority with which he is invested, he may lay it
before the court by way of plea, and the court will exercise
their judgment whether it is a sufficient justification or not.
In this case, if the justification had been proved, the court
might have considered it a sufficient answer; and if the
nature of the case would have allowed of it, might have
adjudged that the raising a mutiny was a good ground for
such a proceeding.’
In the case of Cameron v. Kyte,! which came before this
board on an appeal from the Colony of Berbice, the question
was whether the Governor had authority to reduce a commission
 of 5 per cent. upon all sales in the Colony, granted
to an officer called the Vendue master by the Dutch West
India Company before the capitulation of the Colony to
the British Crown. It was urged that the Governor was the
King’s representative exercising the general authority of
the Crown, and, as such, had power to make the disputed
reduction. It was, however, decided that the Governor did
not hold the position or possess the authority sought to be
attributed to him, and that the act in question was beyond
his powers. In the judgment of this Committee, delivered
by Baron Parke, it is said :—
‘There being, therefore, no express authority from the
Crown, the right to make such an order must, if it exist at
all, be implied from the nature of the office of Governor.
If a Governor had, by virtue of that appointment, the whole
sovereignty of the Colony delegated to him as a viceroy, and
represented the King in the government of that Colony,
there would be good reason to contend that an act of sovereignty
 done by him would be valid and obligatory upon the
subject living within his government, provided the act would
be valid if done by the sovereign himself, though such act
might not be in conformity with the instructions which the
Governor had received for the regulation of his own conduct.
The breach of those instructions might well be contended
on this supposition to be matter resting between the sovereign
and his deputy, rendering the latter liable to censure or
punishment, but not affecting the validity of the act done.
But if the Governor be an officer merely with a limited
authority from the Crown, his assumption of an act of
* 3 Knapp, 332.