In colonies

though where once allowed it cannot be recalled. distant from the mother-country to which writs to return members to Imperial Parliament do not run, it is essential, both for the due government of the country in dealing with matters best understood upon the spot, and with emergencies which do not admit of delay, and also for giving subjects there resident the benefit of a voice, by their representatives, in the councils by which they are taxed and governed, that the Crown should have the power of creating a local Parliament. . . . . We are satisfied that it is sound law, and that a confirmed act of the local legislature lawfully constituted, whether in a settled or conquered colony, has, as to matters within its competence and the limits of its jurisdiction, the operation and force of sovereign legislation, though subject to be controlled by the Imperial Parliament."-Phillips v. Eyre (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 1, at pp. 18–20; 40 L. J. Q. B. 28, at p. 35, Willes, J., delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber.

"The Indian legislature has powers expressly limited by the Act of the Imperial Parliament which created it, and it can, of course, do nothing beyond the limits which circumscribe these powers. But, when acting within those limits, it is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation, as large, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament itself. The established courts of justice, when a question arises whether the prescribed limits have been exceeded, must of necessity determine that question; and the only way in which they can properly do so, is by looking to the terms of the instrument by which, affirmatively, the legislative powers were created, and by which, negatively, they are restricted. If what has been done is legislation, within the general scope of the affirmative words which give the power, and if it violates no express condition or restriction by which that power is limited (in which category would, of course, be included any Act of the Imperial Parliament at variance with it), it is not for any court of justice to inquire further, or to enlarge constructively those conditions and restrictions."-The Queen v. Burah (1878), 3 App. Cas. 889, at pp. 904, 905, Lord Selborne, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

"Two cases have come before this Board in which the powers of Colonial legislatures have been a good deal considered, but these cases are of too late a date to have been known to the Supreme Court [of New South Wales] when their judgment was delivered.

The first was the case of The Queen v. Burah [(1878), 3 App. Cas. 889], in which the question was whether a section of an Indian Act conferring upon the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal the power to determine whether the Act, or any part of it, should be applied to a certain district, was or was not ultra vires. In the judgment of this Board, given by the Lord Chancellor [query, by Lord Selborne, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee-and not by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cairns], the legislation is declared to be intra vires, and the Lord Chancellor lays down the general law in these terms: The Indian legislature has powers expressly limited by the Act of the Imperial Parliament which created it, and it can, of course, do nothing beyond the limits which circumscribe these powers. But, when acting within those limits, it is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation, as large, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament itself."

"The same doctrine has been laid down in a later case of Hodge v. The Queen [(1883), 9 App. Cas. 117; 53 L. J. P. C. 1], where the question arose whether the legislature of Ontario had or had not the power of intrusting to a local authority-a board of commissioners-the power of enacting regulations with respect to their Liquor Licence Act of 1877, of creating offences for the breach of those regulations, and annexing penalties thereto. Their Lordships held that they had that power. It was argued then, as it has been argued to-day, that the local legislature is in the nature of an agent or delegate, and, on the principle, delegatus non potest delegare, the local legislature must exercise all its functions itself, and can delegate or intrust none of them to other persons or parties. But the judgment, after reciting that such had been the contention, goes on to say [p. 132, L. J. at p. 7]: 'It appears to their Lordships, however, that the objection thus raised by the appellants is founded on an entire misconception of the true character and position of the provincial legislatures. They are in no sense delegates of or acting under any mandate from the Imperial Parliament. When the British North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its legislative assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the province and for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated in sect. 92, it conferred powers, not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as the agents of the Imperial Parliament, but authority as plenary and as ample, within the

limits prescribed by sect. 92, as the Imperial Parliament, in the plenitude of its power, possessed or could bestow. Within these limits of subjects and areas the local legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the Imperial Parliament.'"-Powell v. Apollo Candle Co. (1885), 10 App. Cas. 282, at pp. 288, 289, 290; 54 L. J. P. C. 7, at pp. 9, 10, Sir Robert P. Collier, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Imperial statutes affecting a colony.

"If a consideration of the scope and object of a statute leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended to affect a colony, and the words used are calculated to have that effect, they should be so construed."-Callender, Sykes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos and Davies, [1891] A. C. 460, at pp. 466, 467; 60 L. J. P. C. 33, at p. 37, Lord Hobhouse, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

An English statute cannot be applied to colonial or foreign property.

"It seems to me that an inquiry of a much more important kind, and one which bears very closely upon the present question, is whether there is any general rule as to the extent to which English Acts of Parliament dealing with property in general are to be treated as applying to foreign property. I use the word 'foreign' as including colonial property, and I mean by it property which, whether situate in England or elsewhere, is not at the time to which the discussion relates English property, as distinguished from foreign and colonial property. It seems to me that there is such authority, and that it runs in a well-defined current. It is quite clear,' says Lord Westbury, 'that you cannot apply an English Act of Parliament to foreign property whilst it remains foreign property.' [Att.-Gen. v. Campbell (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 524, at p. 530; 41 L. J. Ch. 611, at pp. 613, 614.]" -Colquhoun v. Brooks (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 400, at pp. 406, 407, Wills, J.

In all parts of the Empire where English law prevails legal interpretation should be as nearly as possible the same.

"I conceive (though I know of no direct authority for the position) that the Acts of Colonial legislatures, where the English

B.

R

law prevails, must be governed by the same rules of construction as prevail in England, and that English authorities upon Acts in pari materiâ are authorities for the interpretation of the Colonial Act, I think this is true as a general principle.”—Catterall v. Sweetman (1845), 1 Rob. Ecc. Rep. 304, at p. 318, Dr. Lushington.

"Their lordships think the Court in the colony might well have taken this decision [Diggle v. Higgs (1877), 2 Ex. D. 422; 46 L. J. Ex. 721] as an authoritative construction of the statute. It is the judgment of the Court of Appeal, by which all the Courts in England are bound, until a contrary determination has been arrived at by the House of Lords. Their lordships think that in colonies where a like enactment has been passed by the legislature, the colonial Courts should also govern themselves by it.

It is of the utmost importance that in all parts of the Empire where English law prevails, the interpretation of that law by the Courts should be as nearly as possible the same.”—Trimble v. Hill (1879), 5 App. Cas. 342, at pp. 344, 345; 49 L. J. P. C. 49, at p. 51, Sir Montague E. Smith, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee (cited and applied by Byrne, J., in Hunt v. Fripp, [1898] 1 Ch. 675, at p. 679; 67 L. J. Ch. 377, at p. 378).

"Those Acts (the English Factors Acts) were embodied in the Canadian law, or rather were transferred to Canada almost in their terms, and quite in their meaning. The Canadian lawyers who gave evidence in this case tell us, and I should have expected that it would be so even if I had not been told so by them, that in construing the effect of the Canadian law when taken from the English, they look to English decisions, and say the English law is to be understood, and is meant by these Acts to be carried over bodily to Canada, and consequently Cole v. North Western Bank (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 354; 44 L. J. C. P. 223, is a good authority in Canada upon the construction of the Canadian Acts. I should certainly have expected it to be so, and they say it is so." City Bank v. Barrow (1880), 5 App. Cas. 664, at p. 679, Lord Blackburn.

Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 34) [6th July, 1895]. Sect. 1. "(1) Where the boundaries of a colony have, either before or after the passing of this Act, been altered by Her Majesty the Queen by Order in Council or letters patent the boundaries as so altered shall be, and be deemed to have been from the date of the alteration, the boundaries of the Colony.

66

'(2) Provided that the consent of a self-governing colony shall be required for the alteration of the boundaries thereof.

6

(3) In this Act self-governing colony' means any of the colonies specified in the Schedule to this Act.

"Sect. 2. This Act may be cited as the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895."

It was formerly sufficient to cite the year of the reign in which a statute was made, and, if more than one, the session, chapter, and section, according to the copy of the statute printed by the Queen's Printer, or to the copy contained in the reports of the Commissioners of Public Records.

Reference may now be made either to the short title, if any, or to the regnal year, &c.

Groups of statutes may be cited by statutory collective titles.