THE JUDICIARY [PART VI 
principles whenever he was prepared to take up the ques- 
tion. . . . 
So the matter rested until about a month ago, when the 
attention of Parliament was attracted to the proposed 
release of the bush-ranging prisoners. The dispatches as 
regards the exercise of the prerogative of pardon were then 
called for, and Mr. Parkes wrote his Minute of the 30th ultimo, 
which will be found amongst the published papers. 
Mr. Parkes’ view as embodied in this paper was simply this : 
he preferred that the responsibility of deciding upon applica- 
tions for mitigation of sentences should remain as heretofore, 
solely with the Governor ; but if a change were insisted on, 
and the cases of prisoners were to be decided on the advice 
of ministers, as required by the Secretary of State, he could 
see no sufficient reason for making a distinction between 
this class of business and the ordinary business of Govern- 
ment. In effect, he declined to accept any responsibility 
for ministers unless they had, not only in form but in 
substance, a voice in such decisions. 
I at once felt that it was impossible for me to accept 
Mr. Parkes’ alternative of allowing matters to remain as they 
were. Such a settlement would have been opposed to the 
views of the Secretary of State, and it would have been 
instantly protested against by Parliament, as inconsistent 
with the principles of responsible government. The discus- 
sions which had already taken place in Parliament had 
shown beyond all question the necessity for some minister 
being responsible for the pardons granted, as well as for 
those which might be refused. As instancing the necessity 
for ministerial responsibility, in even the latter class of cases, 
I enclose a parliamentary paper which shows how charges of 
sectarian partiality and official corruption can be based on 
a refusal to entertain an application for mitigation. It will 
be obvious from a perusal of this paper how necessary it is 
that Her Majesty's representative should be relieved from 
a position which exposes him to such imputations. 
I accordingly felt no hesitation in closing with Mr. Parkes’ 
other alternative, and deciding that for the future all applica- 
tions for mitigation of sentences should be submitted to me 
through the intervention of a responsible minister, whose 
opinion and advice, as regards each case, should be specified 
in writing on the papers. This is simply the mode in which 
all the ordinary business of Government is conducted, and 
I could see no sufficient reason for making any distinction in 
these cases. If the appointment of judges and other preroga-