168 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [paART II 
tions with regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, 
which was essentially necessary to the administration of 
criminal law. He called special attention to the instruction 
that the judge should be called upon for a written report?! 
and that the Governor should grant or withhold a pardon 
in his own deliberate judgement. 
He criticized also the provisions of Clauses VIII and X 
of the Instructions, which provided that laws should, as far 
as possible, deal with separate matters, and no perpetual 
clause be part of any temporary law, and that laws should 
have marginal abstracts and other minor details. He 
thought that these were ridiculous provisions and not 
suitable for inclusion.2 
He referred to the attempts of the Colonial Office from 
1864 to 1868 to check legislation in favour of a protective 
tariff. He also protested that the Colonial Office neglected 
its duty in that it did not assert sufficiently clearly its own 
duty to the Empire by refusing to recognize or permit any 
direct interference in international questions by the Govern- 
ment or by the people of any part of the Empire. A clear 
distinction should be drawn between the right of the Colonial 
Office to interfere in local affairs by indirect coercion or by 
control of the representative of the Crown, which should be 
officially and openly withdrawn, while the Imperial Govern- 
ment should assert its claims and its powers in Imperial 
matters. He added that the bestowal of honours upon 
Australian citizens on Imperial advice was not open to 
objection on constitutional or legal grounds, but he argued 
that life titles of the highest rank should be awarded in the 
Colonies by the representative of the Crown on the advice 
of Colonial advisers, and on the recommendation of both 
Houses of the Colonial Parliament. 
The views which he expressed in the correspondence 
were also enunciated bv him in the famous case of Toy v. 
* This requirement was omitted in the new instructions of 1892, 
Also omitted in 1892; see Blackmore, Constitution of South Australia, 
pp- 146, 147 ; Constitution of New Zealand, pp. 186, 187. The instructions 
a8 to these points were only given by dispatch.