374 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III 
this could not be held to be infra wires: the banishment 
was legal, but not the confinement beyond Lower Canada! 
The case of Leonard Watson? is an apparent exception to 
this rule : he was a prisoner under a statute of Upper Canada, 
who was being transported to Van Diemen’s Land, and in 
England it was held in his case that the return to a writ of 
habeas corpus was not invalid, on the ground that the Colonial 
Legislature could not authorize transportation inira fines of 
another territory. But in the case in question it appears 
from the judgement that the point was not dealt with by 
the Court, and that even if the Court be deemed to have 
accepted to the full the argument of the prosecution the 
matter would merely show that the combined effect of the 
Quebec Act of 1774, which introduced English law, and 
the Act of 1824, which mentions transportation among the 
Colonies, had validated what else might have been an abuse 
of power by the Legislature.? So Sir John Macdonald, in 1873, 
pronounced against the validity of an Ontario Act which 
authorized the Lieutenant-Governor to remove any insane 
person who had come into the province back to the other 
province or country whence he had come. He laid it down 
that for removal from one province to another a Dominion 
Act was required, and for removal to another country an 
Imperial Act was necessary. So in an Australian case, 
Ray v. McMakin, it was held by the Supreme Court of 
Victoria that a statute which purported to authorize deten- 
tion beyond the limits of New South Wales was not valid. 
In the same year Lord Carnarvon,’ in the House of Lords, 
laid it down that no Colony could transport to another part 
of the Empire, and Lord Belmore, who had been Governor 
of New South Wales, agreed, but distinguished between 
deportation and exile. In the Brisbane Oyster Fishery Co. 
v. Emerson,” the Chief Justice of New South Wales laid it 
- Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, pp. 465, 466. 
*9A.&E. 131; cf. 1P. & D. 516. ’ 
Lefroy, Legislative Power in Canada, pp. 323, 324. 
Provincial Legislation, 1867-95, p. 103. 
> 1V. LR. 274. Cf. also Hazelton v. Potter, 5 C. L. R. 445, at p. 471. 
Hansard, Ser. 3, cexxiii, 1074. ? Knox (N. S. W.), 80.