A.—2b

4

a It certainly is not the practice here.—John R. I should like to have my paper on this matter, written •when a member of the last Government, herewith. See Exhibit No. 1, and Lord Kimberley's despatch, 4th October, 1869, in reply.—John R._ In one case Sir John Young spared the life of a bushranger, contrary to the advice of his Ministers. —John R. I don't understand this paragraph. —John R. The Honorable the AttorneyGeneral can best inform His Excellency on this point.— John R. Refer.

Also refer to the AttorneyGeneral.—John R.

Also refer to the Attorney' General.—John R.

Also refer to tho Attorney' General.—John R.

Also refer to the Attorney General.—John R.

(No. 4.) The Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Officer Administering- the Government of New South Wales. (Circular.) My Lord, — Downing Street, Ist November, 1871. Questions having been recently raised in the Colony of New Zealand as to the powers vested in the Governor of a colony to grant pardons, it became necessary for Her Majesty's Government to consider carefully the various bearings of this important subject; and I have now to transmit to you, for your information and guidance, the conclusion at which they have arrived. The cases which have to be dealt with may be classed under the five following heads:— 1. Pardon of convicted offenders. 2. Pardon or security of immunity to a witness fearing to criminate himself. 3. Pardon of an accomplice included in a prosecution, and turning Queen's evidence. 4. Promise of pardon to an unknown person concerned in a crime, but not being the principal offender, in order to obtain such information and evidence as shall lead to the apprehension and conviction of the principal. 5. Promise of pardon to political offenders or enemies of the State. With respect to the pardon of convicted offenders, a Governor has already full powers under the terms of his existing Commission. I am not aware whether in the colony under your government it has heen the practice for the Governor to leave signed pardons in blank, to be filled up and used during his temporary ahsence from the seat of Govern- , ment. But as the question has been raised whether this procedure is ad- . missible, I may here observe, for your guidance, that such a course would be • irregular, and I am not awaro of any circumstances which could justify it. ■ The Governor, as invested with a portion of the Queen's prerogative, is ' bound to examine personally each case in which he is called upon to exer- . cise the power intrusted to him, although, in a colony under responsible \ Government, he will of course pay due regard to the advice of his Ministers, i who are responsible to the colony for the proper administration of justice and the prevention of crime, and will not grant any pardon without receiving their advice thereupon. When the person whom it is proposed to pardon has been already convicted, there can be no sufficient reason why the case should not stand, over until it can be duly submitted to the Governor. With respect to the second head —namely, the pardon of a witness ' fearing to criminate himself—it is undoubtedly necessary that means ' should exist by which the evidence of such a witness may be obtained. This case, however, may be better provided for by local legislation than by the exercise of the Eoyal prerogative through the Governor. The Judge presiding at the trial should be empowered to give a certificate under his hand, that the evidence of the witness was required for the ends of justice, and was satisfactorily given; and such certificate should be a bar to all proceedings in respect of the matters touching which the witness has been examined. With respect to the third head —namely, the pardon of an accomplice included in the prosecution, and turning Queen's evidence—it appears to Her Majesty's Government that no local legislation nor alteration of the Governor's Commission is needed, and the practice in England upon this point may properly be adopted in the colony. In England a pardon is not granted before the trial, neither has the party admitted as Queen's evidence any legal claim to a pardon, nor has the Magistrate before whom the original examination is taken any power to promise him one on condition of his becoming a witness. In such cases where the accomplice's evidence has been obtained (which can be done either by his pleading guilty, or by the Crown entering a nolle prosequi against him before calling him as a witness against his accomplice), and he appears to have acted in good faith, and to have given his evidence truthfully, he is always considered to have an equitable claim to the merciful consideration of the Court, which is usually extended to him by the Judge presiding at the trial, by the infliction of minor, or in some cases of a merely nominal punishment. With respect to the fourth head—namely, the promise of pardon in order to discover and convict the principal offender—Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, in future Commissions, to vest in the Governors of colonies the power of granting a pardon to any accomplice, not being the actual perpetrator of the crime, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the apprehension and conviction of the principal offender.