336 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART 11 
do so, and he cannot decide if he is not able to obtain all 
the information he needs. 
Normally a Governor will, of course, be justified in accept- 
ing the advice which he receives from his ministers as being 
a correct statement of facts and law! but he is not bound to 
be so satisfied if he has reason for suspicion, and in matters 
of law he has been definitely told that he must exercise his 
own judgement if he is in doubt. In cases where, for any 
reason, a Governor might distrust the statements made by 
ministers he would be entitled ? to get information from any 
sourcewhich wasavailable, but the responsibility ona Governor 
who did this would be very great, and of course he would re- 
quire to be prepared to face the resignation of his ministers : 
happily in modern times the case is not very likely to arise. 
It is, of course, grossly improper to anticipate, except 
in some urgent necessity, the decision of the Governor : 3 
there have occurred from time to time in Australia cases 
of releases of criminals before the formal sanction of the 
Governor has been accorded, but on no occasion has the 
action been defended by ministers, and its lack of propriety 
is 80 obvious that a Governor who dismissed his ministers on 
the ground of any such action would have popular sympathy 
with him. There has recently been seen in a Canadian case the 
danger of an officer of the Government declining to submit a 
petition to the Lieutenant-Governor, on the ground that the 
decision taken would be that of the Ministry not to grant the 
petition : in the case in question it was held by the Supreme 
Court of Canada and the Privy Council that damages were 
recoverable, though Sir R. Finlay, for the defence, urged that 
the decision being that of ministers the necessity of actually 
submitting it to the Lieutenant-Governor did not exist 4 
! Cf. Lord Crewe in House of Lords, July 25, 1910, vi. 406-12; House 
of Commons Debates, June 29, 1910; Parl. Pap., C. 2173, p. 81. 
* Seethereport of the Victoria Commission on Sir T. Bent’s illegal expendi- 
bure, Parl. Pap., 1909, Sess. 2, No. 1. Cf. Parl. Pap., C. 3382, pp. 139 seq. 
* Cf. New South Wales Legislative Assembly Journals. 1859-60, i. 1131: 
Parl. Pap., C. 3382, p. 268. 
* Fulton v. Norton, [1908] A. C. 451 ; 398. C, R. 202. Cf. also Rusden, 
New Zealand. iii. 446.