274 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [part II 
terms enacts the legality of the sentences in question, and 
provides that they shall be deemed to be sentences passed 
in the regular and ordinary course of criminal jurisdiction. 
This Board has no power to review these sentences, or to 
enquire into the propriety or impropriety of passing such an 
Act of Parliament. The only thing for persons who are 
subject to such an Act of Parhament to do is to obey. The 
question in this case arises under the Natal Act of Parliament 
in respect of offences committed in Natal, which Act has 
been assented to by the Governor and, having the force of 
law, is binding on their Lordships. The language of the 
Act appears to their Lordships to be subject to no question 
of doubt or ambiguity at all. 
Section 6 enacts that :— 
* All sentences passed by any Courts-Martial or by any Court or person 
administering Martial Law under the authority of the Governor or of the 
Commandant of Militia in Natal, or by any military officer purporting to 
exercise authority in that behalf, since the date of the aforesaid proclama- 
tion of 9th February, 1906, including fines and other punishments inflicted 
by military officers in the field, are hereby confirmed and made and declared 
to be lawful, and in so far as the same shall not have been already carried 
into effect, shall be deemed to be final sentences passed by duly and legally 
constituted Courts of this Colony, and no appeal shall lie in respect of 
same, but they shall be and remain in force and shall be carried out in the 
same manner as the sentences of the Courts of Law in this Colony.’ 
Under these circumstances their Lordships feel that it is 
impossible to entertain any question of appeal, and they will 
therefore humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss the Petition. 
Their Lordships are of opinion that in the circumstances of 
this case the Petitioner ought to pay the costs of the Petition. 
Thirdly, it has been discussed with some confusion of 
thought whether or not the Governor is required to act on 
ministerial advice in proclaiming martial law. The answer 
is of course legally that he is not bound ; he is never bound 
to act on ministerial advice, and still less so when he may 
incur even with an indemnity act personal responsibility, 
and, even if he is safe from chance of criminal conviction, 
runs the risk of being in a troublesome position. No 
Governor wishes to be haled before magistrates, as happened 
in the case of Eyre! or to have a Chief Justice delivering 
a long address to a grand jury in which he possibly figures as 
the villain. But it is clear that this is precisely one of the 
1 3Q. B. 487; cf. Parl. Pap., Cd. 4403, p. 129. =