A.—2b

39

No. 6. The Earl of Carnarvon to Sir H. Eobinson, K.C.M.G. Sir, — Downing Street, 7th October, 1874. I have received your confidential despatch of the 29th of June,* reporting the circumstances which have led to a change being made in the system which had hitherto existed in New South Wales in regard to the exercise of the prerogative of pardon. 2. I approve generally of the course proposed to be followed henceforth (as specified in the minute of the 2nd of June, printed at page 7 of the Parliamentary Paper which you enclose), when the question of granting a pardon or the commutation of a sentence has to be decided. 3. You will, I apprehend, have no difficulty in conforming to the clear rule laid down in your instructions, which is based on this principle—namely, that, on the one hand, the Governor to whom personally tho Queen delegates a very high prerogative cannot in any way be relieved from the duty of judging for himself in every case in which that prerogative is proposed to be exercised; while on the other hand he is bound, before deciding, to pay the most careful attention to the advice of his Ministers, or that one of them who, in the matter under consideration, may be selected to represent his colleagues. 4. As the setting aside by commutation of the verdict of a Court of Justice can in hardly any case be necessary as an element in the local administration of the colony for which the Ministers are responsible, it should seem almost impossible that any serious collision of opinion should arise on questions of this class between a Governor and his Ministers. 5. In my despatch of to-day's date,t this question has been further dealt with, and I have there explained why I consider that your minute of the Ist of June goes somewhat further in regard of throwing the responsibility from the Governor upon the Ministers than is, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, altogether desirable. I have, Ac, Carnarvon.

No. 7. The Earl of Carnarvon to Sir H. Eobinson, K.C.M.G. (Extract.) Downing Street, 7th October, 1874. I cannot but think that it is open to objection that the commutation, which, as I have explained to you, I consider to have been excessive in itself, was accompanied by the condition of the prisoner's absence from New South Wales. If public opinion in the colony had been favourable to the release of Gardiner in the ordinary manner, and he had been set free in New South Wales, the colony would at all events have borne her share of the risk attendant on the discharge upon society of so notorious a criminal. Even on those terms, the course is one to which reasonable exception might bo taken by the Governments of places beyond the colony liable to be affected by it, and from which even troublesome complications might arise. But to release him upon the condition that he should inflict himself either upon other colonies and foreign countries, or upon this country, was altogether in opposition to the theory now generally adopted, and most strongly contended for at no distant date in New South Wales, that a community should not relieve itself of its worst criminals at the expense of other countries. The Act 11 Vict., cap. 34,J must, in spite of the occasional use which appears to have been made of its provisions, be considered to be virtually obsolete; it would clearly be very objectionable if it were extensively acted on, and, therefore, it cannot be too soon repealed ; but until it is repealed it must be understood that no pardon, except in the case of those criminals to whom promises have been made, can be granted under the conditions of its 4th section.

No. 8. The Earl of Carnarvon to Sir H. Eobinson, K.C.M.G. Sir, — , Downing Street, Bth October, 1874. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your confidential report of the 3rd July. || The subject to which the despatch principally relates—the form of procedure when the question of granting a pardon is under consideration —has been dealt with in other despatches, from which you see that in my opinion there is no objection to the course proposed to be followed in New South Wales, which appears to me to be substantially the same as that adopted in the other Australasian colonies, and to be generally in accordance with the Eoyal Instructions, it being always remembered that, while the Ministers are responsible for advising the Governor, the Governor cannot divest himself of the personal responsibility which is specially intrusted to him. I have, Ac, Carnarvon.

No. 9. Sir A. E. Kennedy, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Carnarvon.—(Eeceived 11th November.) My Lord, — Government House, Hong Kong, 3rd October, 1874. I have the honor to enclose, for the information of your Lordship, the copy of a letter received from the United States Consul at this port protesting against the embarkation for the United States * No. a" t No. 5. t Vide page 10. || No. 4.