112 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART 111 
that the Imperial Acts should not apply to transactions 
governed by that Act of the Commonwealth, a provision 
which would have been waste paper if the Act had applied 
bo the cases as Imperial Acts and not as legislation intro- 
duced by an Imperial Act giving a power of modification. 
One somewhat important point has been raised in Canada, 
namely that while it cannot be denied that Canada is subject 
to the operation of the law of 1865, yet the British North 
America Act really gives authority to the Parliament of 
the Dominion to repeal any Imperial Act whatsoever 
referring to Canada passed before 1867. It was held by 
Draper C. J. in the case of Regina v. Taylor! that the word 
‘exclusive’ in s. 91 of the British North America Act was in- 
tended to operate as a final renunciation by the Imperial 
Parliament of any intention to legislate for the Dominion 
of Canada. In this judgement it seems that Strong C. J. 
afterwards expressed his concurrence.? Lefroy ? also quotes 
as supporting this view the case of The Royalt in which it 
was held that the provision in the Imperial Merchant Shipping 
Act of 1854 which forbad a sailor to bring a suit for wages 
in the Vice-Admiralty Court for a sum under £50 had been 
repealed by s. 56 of the Dominion Seamen’s Act of 1873, 
which fixed the amount as two hundred dollars in the case 
of ships registered in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and British 
Columbia. But this is a different case, and it falls under the 
rule that an Imperial Act can be altered in virtue of a power 
given thereby, viz. in the case in question the power to 
regulate registered vessels, which by s. 547 included the 
power to regulate these vessels in a manner other than that 
expressly provided for in the Act itself. In the case of 
Holmes v. Temple,5 however, Chauveau J. in Sessions of the 
Peace of Quebec also interpreted ‘ exclusive’ as meaning that 
the Imperial Parliament had abdicated its functions, but 
that opinion is one of so inferior a Court. and so little con. 
* (1875) 36 U. C. Q. B. 183. See Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, 
pp. 208-31, * Lefroy, p. 211. * Op. cit., p. 212. 
'(1883) 9 Q. L. R. 148. Contrast The Farewell, 7 Q. L. R. 380. 
(1882) 8 Q. L. R. 351 ; the actual decision in the case was correct.