DESBATCHES EROM THE GOVERNOR OE

A.—No. 1

12

The question really under discussion is, whether a Governor of a Colony having a Eepresentative Legislature and what is called a " Eesponsible Government," ought to be himself liable for any illegal acts done in his name and by his order, acting under the advice of his Ministers ? The question is one of policy, and it therefore does not become me to make any remark on the matter further than that it seems to me, as the law stands, the existence of Eesponsible Government in a Colony, and the fact that the Governor of such Colony in any particular matter may have acted on the advice of his Ministers, would not exonerate him from the consequences of any act done by his orders, and I think that if such an act would amount to a criminal offence, if done without advice of Ministers, it would also be no less criminal if done upon such advice.

Enclosure 3 in No. 4. Chaege of His Honor Mr. Justice Richmond to the Grand Jury at Nelson, Ist March, 1869. His Honor, in his charge to the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the fact that the cases to be brought before them were few in number and of an insignificant nature, there being but a single charge of violence to the person, and the others consisted of four minor cases, including larceny and embezzlement, and housebreaking by day. No district was in a state of more profound tranquillity than the district of Nelson, where the most perfect security as to person and property prevailed, as much as in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. This offered a marked and painful contrast to the position of settlers in the North Island. When last he addressed the Jury on an occasion like the present, he adverted to the state of affairs in the North Island, but he must say that the prospect of things was rather worse now than then, —worse now than ever he had seen it. It occurred strongly to his mind, and he had no doubt it would impress itself upon the minds of the gentlemen of the Jury, that provisions of the law for the administration of justice are not applicable to such a state of things as now exists in some districts of the North Island. When a country had to do with a savage foe, which respects neither age nor sex, the ordinary criminal law was inadequate to deal with the occasion. But the power of colonial legislation to deal with a difficulty thus arising had been called in question in the Mother Country. There was a case before the Queen's Bench, arising out of the Jamaica insurrection, in which the validity of the Indemnity Act passed by the Colonial Legislature of Jamaica had been called in question. It was denied that a Colonial Indemnity Act was available in the Mother Country. This was a case which greatly concerned New Zealand. It was probable that the Court of Queen's Bench may by this time have decided that the Indemnity Act of Jamaica was invalid; at least from the strong opinion given expression to on the case by the Lord Chief Justice—an opinion, however, expressed by his Lordship before hearing the argument in favour of the Act —he gathered that the judgment would probably be that no power existed in the Colonial Legislature to pass Acts of Indemnity for action taken prior to the passing of such Acts. Not that it would be held that the Colonial Legislatures had not power to make certain laws which should operate in the future and be prospective, but that they had not power to pass Acts having a retrospective effect. It was a question of great importance, and one touching the future action of the Supreme Court of the Colony. If the news was true that he (the Judge) had heard that morning [respecting the removal of all the British Troops from New Zealand], there would be devolved upon this Colony the responsibilities of an independent State. But if we are to have the responsibilities, we must be allowed the powers of an independent State. We must be allowed to meet the urgent necessities of our position by such measures as we may here deem expedient and just. He could not doubt that English statesmen would see the fairness of such a demand. He mentioned this subject because at any moment this Court might be called upon to apply to cases —civil or criminal, arising out of the insurrection, and the measures taken to suppress it —principles and modes of procedure which everybody here must see to be quite inapplicable to such a state of things. It was possible that by the Colonial Legislature some prospective provisions might be made to meet the exigency of tho case. But at all events, in the position now assumed towards us by the Mother Country, it was manifestly fair that Imperial legislation should, if necessary, remove all doubts as to the power of the Colony to grant indemnity for acts bona fide done under proper authority to suppress insurrection. The subject is one which might tempt to further observation; but the Judges of this Court, whose duty it was to restrain within the proper limits of their functions every other officer in the State, should be specially careful themselves to observe those limits. He would, therefore, without further comment on events and transactions which were moving us all deeply, dismiss the Grand Jury to the proper business of the day.

Enclosure 4 in No. 4. Euetiiee Opinion by the Attoeney-Geneeal of New Zealand. Since I wrote the opinion annexed (October 29, 1868), not only the validity but the effect of Colonial Acts of Indemnity have been under the consideration of the Courts of Law in England. It has been decided that such Acts are valid, and moreover that they are as effectual in England as in the Colony by the Legislature of which they have been passed. The responsibility of a Governor of a Colony for acts in suppressing rebellion or other disturbances, has also been the subject of a charge to a Grand Jury by one of tho Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench in England, and has also been the subject of remark by the Lord Chief Justice. Governor Eyre was indicted for misdemeanour under the English Act enabling Governors of Colonies to be tried for great crimes and misdemeanours committed in the Colonies of which they are Governors. The offence charged wa^ of illegal and oppressive conduct in proclaiming martial law and for continuing martial law during an unnecessary period, and for allowing the undue and excessive