CHAP.1v] ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 435 
tion in regard to the aborigines, was found to have been invalid 
because of the non-observance of the exact procedure in regard 
to the proclamation of the royal assent, and required to be 
re-enacted in the proper form in 1905 by s. 65 of Act No. 14. 
The inconvenience of the procedure in the case of majorities 
was also illustrated by a case in Victoria in 19031 Tt was 
there questioned whether the Constitution Amendment Bill, 
No. 1854 of that year, was, strictly speaking, valid. Among 
various points which were raised by petition presented to 
the Governor was whether the validity of the Bill was 
affected by the fact that Parliament sat in a different place 
from that named in the Governor’s Proclamation as the 
place for holding the Session of Parliament ; also whether 
the Bill was substantially altered after the second and third 
readings in the Lower House and before it was finally agreed 
to, and whether in view of its being substantially altered 
it should properly have been presented for the assent of the 
Governor. It was provided by s. 60 of the constitution, that 
alterations of the constitution of the Houses were subject 
to the second and third readings being passed with the con- 
currence of an absolute majority of the whole numbers of 
the members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative 
Assembly. It was suggested, therefore, by opponents of 
the validity of the measure that no amendments could be 
allowed between the second and third readings of the Bill 
in the Lower House and its readings in the Upper House. 
The Bill was largely amended by alterations being made after 
a free conference between the two Houses. It is clear that 
the alterations and the general procedure were not at all 
satisfactory, but it does not appear that the irregularities 
were sufficient to render the Bill null and void. At any rate 
the royal assent was not withheld from the Bill, and it must 
be presumed that it was not held by the Imperial Govern- 
ment to violate the provisions of s. 60 of the Schedule. 
Nevertheless the validity of the Act has since heen questioned 
! Cf. the discussion in 1909, Victoria Parliamentary Debates, 1909, pp. 3303 
50. ; and sec Melbourne Herald, May 14 and 15, 1903. The discussion 
ignores the validating effect of 7 Edw. VIL c. 7. 
fo