446 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [parrin
approve his action. In the case of Sir T. Bent his actions!
formed the subject of examination by a committee, but it
discovered that irregularities had been the order of the day
in Victoria, and of course it would be an error to confuse
such irregularities with serious crime.
§ 2. THE PRIVILEGES OF THE PARLIAMENTS
The question of the privileges of the Houses of Parliament
in the Colonies has been the subject of some judicial decisions,
but now is perfectly clear. There is no doubt that apart from
statute a colonial legislature had no more real power than
2 debating society except in so far as measures to preserve
order therein might be allowed to take more drastic forms
than in a mere debating society. It was laid down by the
Privy Council in the case of Kielley v. Carson? that the
House of Assembly of Newfoundland had no power to order
an arrest on a complaint of contempt committed out of
doors, on the ground that no such privilege had been conferred
upon it by the Crown even had the Crown had the power to
do so, which the Court evidently did not believe, the power
not being required for the purpose of enforcing the conduct
of the proceedings of the House. In the case of Doyle v.
Falconer ® they decided that the Legislative Assembly of
Dominica, which was at the time a representative body,
sould not punish for a contempt committed before it; it
could remove an obstruction to business but not punish for
any action taken. So the Supreme Court of Canada. in
* Cf. Victoria Parliamentary Debates, 1909, pp. 330 seq.; Parl. Pap.,
Jess. 2, No. 1. . The useful function of the Auditor is there clearly shown,
and the South Australia Government has asserted its desire for his free
wction ; see House of Assembly Debates, 1910, p. 777. The disadvantages
>f the want of proper control can be seen in the case of the illegal pay-
ments from the Transvaal Treasury to members of Parliament in April
1910; see above, pp. 265, 266. It was then held that a civil suit to
restrain an illegal payment by the Treasurer would not lie. For Canada,
:f. the resignation of the Auditor-General in 1905. Canadian Annual Review,
1905, pp. 147 seq.
* 4 Moo. P. C. 63, overruling Beaumont v. Barrett, 1 Moo. P. C. 59. Cf.
Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, pp. 25, 26.
* 4 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) 203.
