The result of this is that the Legislature, which, though authorized to pass such a law, was at the same time subject to a superior authority which might disallow its Act, has by the creation of a subordinate law-making body put out of reach of the veto power all laws which might be made in the nature or guise of regulations upon the subject in question. Though each one of the License Commissioners' regulations would have been subject to review and disallowance by the Governor-General in Council if they had been passed by the Legislature, yet, as regulations passed by a subordinate body created by such Legislature, they escape review and yet are held to be "laws of the Province." This is a conclusion which awakens suspicion as to the soundness of the decision.

Composition of the legislative bodies and their privileges.-By the seventeenth section of the Act, the Parliament of Canada is declared to be composed of "the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." By the sixty-ninth section of the Act, the Legislature of Ontario consists of the Lieutenant-Governor and a Legislative Assembly. By the seventy-first section, the Legislature of Quebec consists of the Lieutenant-Governor and two Houses, a Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. And by the eighty-eighth section, the Legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were to continue to exist as they existed at the Union.

By the eighteenth section of the Act, it was declared that the privileges, immunities and powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons and by the members thereof, respectively, should be such as were from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada. But this was subject to a qualification defined in the following words :-" But so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this Act held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof." The meaning of this clause was ambiguous, in consequence of the use of the term "this Act,"

for it could not with certainty be determined whether it meant the British North America Act, or the Act of the Canadian Parliament defining the privileges. If the former, the Parliament of Canada could never acquire any privileges exceeding those enjoyed by the British House of Commons. at the time of the passing of the British North America Act. If the latter, the Parliament could keep pace with the Imperial Parliament by passing an Act, but could not exceed the privileges of the British House at the time of the passing of the Canadian Act. The ambiguity was disposed of by an Act, passed 38 & 39 Vict., chaptered 38, which. recited the section in question, repealed it and substituted therefor a section which makes it clear that the privileges to be enjoyed are never to exceed those enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time of passing the Canadian Act. In pursuance of the power granted by the British North America Act, before the amendment referred to, the Canadian Parliament passed an Act declaring that the Senate and the House of Commons and the members thereof should have the same privileges as were enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time of the passing of the British North America Act, and some specific privileges are defined in the Act. It is now consolidated in chapter eleven by the Revised Statutes of Canada.

The privileges and immunities of the Provincial Legislatures have been defined by two cases. They may be divided. into two classes, the two cases in question furnishing illustrations of each. First, there are the rights and privileges of the Assemblies towards their own members, and secondly, those towards stranger:.

As to the right to deal with a refractory member, the whole subject was discussed at great length in Landers v. Woodworth (k). In that case a member of the Nova Scotia Legislature had, in his place in the House, made charges against the Provincial Secretary of having altered the records of one of the departments. A committee of enquiry was granted and the charges were reported to be unfounded.

'k) 2 S. C. R. 158.

The House thereupon declared the member guilty of a breach of its privileges and demanded of him that he should appear at the bar of the House with the doors open and make the following apology:-" Being convinced that in making the charge I did so without sufficient evidence to authorize me, in my place in Parliament, to accuse a member of so serious an offence, I do now apologize there for to this House, and trust to be excused by this House for having preferred such a charge without sufficient and due consideration." Upon his refusal to accede to this dictation he was ordered into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms for removal from the House, and being forcibly removed he brought an action of assault. The learned Judge who tried the case told the jury that if the turning out of the plaintiff was in point of fact necessary, on the ground that he was an obstruction to the business of the house, he would have no right of action; but if they found that he was turned out, not because he was an obstruction, but merely for a contempt in refusing to make an apology for a past offence, he ought to have a verdict. The jury found that he was turned out for contempt and gave him a verdict. The Supreme Court held the verdict to be right. An exhaustive review of the authorities by the Supreme Court shows the law, as to the Provincial Legislatures to be, that, in the absence of express grant, the Legislature had no power to remove a member for contempt unless he was actually obstructing the business of the House.

In Ex parte Dansereau (1) it appeared that the Legislature caused the arrest of a witness for contempt in refusing to answer questions put him upon an enquiry ordered by the House. Power was conferred upon the Legislature by its own Act to summon witnesses, etc., and it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench of Quebec, Appeal side, Ramsay, J., dissenting, that the Act was valid, and that the Provincial Legislatures have, as incident to their express powers, the right to summon witnesses and to punish persons who disobey such summons, the right being necessary to the

(2) 1 Cart. at p. 273.

proper exercise of their powers of legislation and the control assigned to them in respect of the administration of public affairs-a decision, said Sir William Richards, C.J., in Landers v. Woodworth (m) "fully warranted by the terms of the provincial statute."

Distribution of Legislative powers.-The power to make laws is distributed amongst the several legislatures by the ninety-first, ninety-second, ninety-third and ninety-fourth sections of the British North America Act. Inasmuch as various topics are assigned to each Legislature, their jurisdiction with regard to the limits so assigned may be called their topical jurisdiction. Then, touching their topical jurisdiction, they in most instances have exclusive jurisdiction, but in some concurrent, in some oblique or auxiliary jurisdiction, and in all cases, perhaps, inferential or incidental jurisdiction.

Topical jurisdiction.-We might dismiss this head of the subject by simply remarking that the different topics of legislative jurisdiction are found in the sections already cited. It might, however, be expected that human ingenuity and foresight would not be sufficient to include all matters that might require the exercise of jurisdiction, and that cases might arise which would necessarily, with respect to subject matter, be difficult to classify. Accordingly a rule has been laid down for the purpose of ascertaining within which jurisdiction-Dominion or Provincial-a subject falls. In Citizens and Queen Ins. Co. v. Parsons (n) the Judicial Committee in reviewing the distribution of legislative powers, said, "The first question to be decided is, whether the Act impeached in the present appeals falls within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in sections 92, and assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; for if it does not, it can be of no validity, and no other question would then arise. It is only when an Act of the Provincial Legislature prima facie falls within one of these classes of subjects that the further questions arise, viz., whether, notwithstanding this is so, the subject of the

(m) 1 Cart. at p. 366.

(n) 2 Cart. 165.

Act does not also fall within one of the enumerated classes of subjects in section 91, and whether the power of the Provincial Legislature is or is not thereby overborne." This rule was again referred to in Dobie v. Temporalities Board, (o) where its principle was affirmed.

The frame of the ninety-first section indicates a predominating power of legislation in the Dominion Parliament unless the subject matter in question is taken away by express exception in favour of the Provincial Legislatures. To the Dominion Parliament is assigned the full power of making laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Whatever is assigned to the Legislatures is by way of exception therefrom. Consequently if not found among the exceptions by express words or reasonable intendment, the subject matter must be included in the grant to the Dominion Parliament.

There is involved in the topical jurisdiction of the legislatures, the question of the measure of their powers to deal with antecedent laws. By the one hundred and twentyninth section of the British North America Act, it is declared that, "except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in force in Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, at the Union, and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers, judicial, administrative and ministerial, existing therein at the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, respectively, as if the Union had not been made; subject nevertheless, (except with respect to such as are enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished, or altered by the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the respective Provinces, according to the authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act."

The exception, contained in the parenthesis, might at first. sight seem to indicate that Imperial laws could not be (0) 2 S. C. R. at p. 191.