CHAP. VII] THE UPPER HOUSES 559
3. We think that the claims of the House of Representa-
tives contained in their message to the Legislative Council
{which ran simply as follows :—That it is beyond the power
of the Legislative Council to vary or alter the management
or distribution of any money as prescribed by the House
of Representatives; that it is within the power of the
House of Representatives by Act of one session to vary the
appropriation or management of money prescribed by Act
of a previous session) are well founded.
Subject of course to the limitation that the Legislative
Council have a perfect right to reject any Bill passed by
the House of Representatives having for its object to vary
the management or appropriation of money prescribed by an
Act of the previous session.
The same principles were reasserted in the Queensland
case, but with the added dignity of the authority of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The following
extracts show the question put and the reply 2 :—
Most GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN—
We, Your Majesty’s loyal and dutiful subjects, the
members of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly
of Queensland in Parliament assembled, humbly approach
Your Majesty with a renewed assurance of our affection
and loyalty towards Your Majesty’s person and Government.
Questions have arisen between the Legislative Council and
Legislative Assembly with respect to the relative rights and
powers of the two Houses, which questions we are desirous
of submitting for the opinion of Your Majesty’s Most Honour-
able Privy Council.
! Tn 1898 the Speaker ruled that the Legislative Council of New Zealand
could not amend the Old Age Pensions Bill, and his ruling was acquiesced
in; see Pember Reeves, State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, ii.
247. Rejection of an Income Tax Bill in 1893 and of a Land and Income
Tax Assessment Bill in 1895 by the Legislative Council of New South Wales
illustrate the proviso; see Walker, Australasian Democracy, pp. 36, 50, 51,
In 1882 Mr. Whitaker’s Ministry introduced payment of members in a
separate Bill to avoid the appearance of a ‘tack’ by adding the clause to
an ordinary Appropriation Bill; see Rusden, New Zealand, iii. 450. In
1856 the Legislative Council of Canada threw out a Supply Bill because
it included an item of £200,000 for buildings as to which it had not been
consulted, and a new Supply Bill minus the objectionable item had hastily
to be passed ; see Pope, Sir John Macdonald, i. 173.
* Parl, Pap., C. 4794 ; H. L. 214, 1894,
