cap. 111] THE GOVERNOR AND MINISTERS 171 
by a majority of four judges to two, and accordingly an 
appeal was brought to the Privy Council, which decided 
that an alien had no legal right enforceable by action to enter 
Victoria, and therefore reversed the judgement of the Court 
below! They also held that on the terms of the Act of 
1881 regarding Chinese immigration the plaintiff had no case, 
for there was no obligation on the Collector of Customs 
to accept the money tendered when the ship had clearly 
violated the law by bringing more than the legal number— 
1 to 100 tons—of Chinese. But the points dealt with by 
the Chief Justice, which alone were of supreme interest 
to him, were not decided by the Judicial Committee. 
Now there is much to be said for many of the contentions 
of the Chief Justice. In the first place, he was right in 
pointing out that part of the royal instructions contained 
matters too trivial to be included in instructions to a Gover- 
nor. Moreover, they were not matters which he was really 
competent to decide. So advantage was taken of his advice 
to revise in 1892 the royal instructions to the Governors of 
the Australasian Colonies and also of Newfoundland, though 
the instructions were conveyed in a slightly different form 
in the shape of a dispatch. Moreover, the insistence laid 
by the Chief Justice on the fact that the Governor possesses 
the whole executive power of the Crown so far as is necessary 
for a Colonial Government is just and proper? But it seems 
impossible to maintain the position that the Governor is a 
parallel to the Sovereign in constitutional monarchy, and 
that therefore he is obliged to act on the advice of his 
ministers in the same sense as that in which the King of the 
United Kingdom acts on the advice of his ministers. Nor 
is it possible to maintain the sharp distinction which the 
Chief Justice drew between the actions of the Governor 
a8 head of the Colonial Government and as an Imperial 
' Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A. C. 272. 
* Cf 220. R. 222; 19 O. A. R. 31; Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of 
Australia,® pp. 300 seq.; Lefroy, Law Quarterly Review, 1899, p. 283; 
Ontario Sess, Pap., 1888, No. 37, pp. 20-2; Clark, Australian Constilu- 
tional Law, pp. 63-5.