200 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II 
period from your duties, and accordingly declare this Parlia- 
ment prorogued until Tuesday, the 8th day of October, then 
to meet for the despatch of business. 
The result of his action was in every way satisfactory. 
The Upper House proved on the meeting of the Parliament 
more amenable to reason, and an Act was passed after 
concessions on both sides. 
In Tasmania an interesting case of a dissolution being 
refused arose in 1904, when the Acting Governor was placed 
in the not very usual position of having to decide the issue 
in the absence of the Governor on leave ; the circumstances 
are clearly and effectively set out in the memorandum which 
was addressed to the Premier on July 5 by the Chief Justice 
in his capacity as administrator of the Government :— 
The Acting Governor this morning has received through 
the Premier the advice of Ministers that a dissolution of the 
House of Assembly should take place. The Acting Governor 
thereupon asked the Premier to state in writing the grounds 
apon which such advice was tendered, and has received 
the following reply from Mr. Propsting :— 
"Your Excellency,—Following upon your request of this morning, 
[ now have the honour to set out hereunder the grounds upon which I apply 
bo Your Excellency for a dissolution of Parliament, The present Govern- 
ment assumed office on the 9th April, 1903, and met the House on the 
i8th August in the same year. I believe that two-thirds of the members 
of the House of Assembly were returned pledged to a reduction of expen- 
diture, a reduction of the number of members, and the imposition of 
orobate, or for a non-inquisitorial form of taxation, in substitution for the 
personal exertion provisions of the Income Tax Act. Bills to attain these 
objects were passed through the House of Assembly, and sent to the 
Legislative Council in the session of 1903, and were all rejected or amended 
in such a way that the House of Assembly could not accept them. Parlia- 
ment prorogued on the 18th December, 1903, and was called together in 
March, 1904, when the principal taxation measure adopted by the House 
of Assembly in lieu of the provisions of the income tax referred to above 
was rejected by the Legislative Council. Parliament was thereupon pro- 
rogued, and met again on the 8th June, 1904, when a bill to provide for 
both Houses consulting their own electors in the case of continued differ- 
ences between them was rejected by the Legislative Council. The House 
of Assembly then made a request to the Council for a free conference upon 
constitutional reform and financial measures, and this request was refused 
oy the Legislative Council. 
It is claimed by Legislative Councillors in the course of debate that the 
country is with them in their action, and it is upon that ground measures 
sent by the House of Assembly to the Council are rejected. 1am of opinion 
that the country is with the House of Assembly, and this is demonstrated