The principle on which the Duke of Newcastle rejected the award was, that a man who agrees to refer his case to one tribunal cannot, therefore, be forced to submit it to another. The equity of that principle cannot be denied. What are the facts? The commissioners, unable to conduct an examination into all the cases, recommended that arbitrators, mutually chosen, should undertake the work. They laid down general principles, and left the details to be executed by others. According to his grace’s determination, as expressed in his own words, “It was very desirable that the commissioners should go into the inquiry unfettered by any conditions such as the assembly wished to impose.” The commissioners were enjoined by his grace “to devote their efforts to framing such _recommendations_ as should be demanded by the equity of the case,” and their conclusions “would possess double weight if, happily, they should be unanimous.” Their recommendations and conclusions were adopted unanimously; yet, in the estimation of his grace they, after all, amounted to nothing more than an expression of opinion; for, said his grace, addressing the lieutenant-governor, “I must instruct you, therefore, however unwillingly, to treat the commissioners’ award only as an expression of opinion, which, however valuable as such, cannot be made legally binding on the parties concerned.” If it was simply the opinion of the able men appointed as commissioners that was required, it could have been probably obtained without the formalities of a royal commission, and unaccompanied by some of the solemnities of a judicial tribunal; and if these gentlemen had been aware that their investigations and decisions were to be so easily “put out of the way,” it is certain they would never have condescended to undertake the work; nor would the government or the legislature of the island have gone through business which they thought possible to come, through no fault of theirs, to so comical a termination. But, assuming that the commissioners had mistaken the nature of their functions in one or two particulars, on what ground could all their decisions be rejected? Because an error in judgment was committed in certain cases, was that any good reason for superciliously brushing aside the whole report, and divesting it of all binding authority? We must leave the reader to answer the question according to his judgment. Practically, the colonial secretary said to the commissioners, on the conclusion of their labors: You have conducted the investigation with ability and impartiality; you have presented a report which has exhausted all the facts necessary to a just decision; but you, at the same time, have completely mistaken the nature of your duties, and your award, if such it can be designated, is without any binding value, and must, therefore, be treated as simply your opinion, and nothing more.