336 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
same, and transmitted it to the Legislative Council for its 
concurrence not less than one week before the close of the 
session, and the Legislative Council, before the close of the 
session, has either rejected or failed to pass the Bill, or passed 
the Bill with any amendment in which the Legislative 
Assembly does not concur, and bv reason of which the Bill 
has again been lost. 
The circumstances in which this Bill was passed are of 
some interest. It will be remembered that in 1907 the 
Governor of Queensland refused to add members to the Upper 
House at the request of Mr. Kidston, in order to secure the 
passing of measures to provide for the abolition of the 
postal vote, and the passing of a Wages Boards Bill, which 
was to apply to the pastoral and agricultural industries, 
Mr. Philp took office on the resignation of Mr. Kidston. 
He was refused supply by the House of Assembly, but was 
granted a dissolution by the Governor, Lord Chelmsford, 
who thought that it was desirable that the country should 
decide upon the issue. The country decisively rejected 
Mr. Philp by a large majority in favour of the coalition of 
Labour and Mr. Kidston’s party against him, and Mr. Philp 
at once resigned, Mr, Kidston returning to power. Mr. Kid- 
ston, however, was not satisfied with the position which he 
occupied as resting upon a coalition of Labour and his own 
party, and he decided to secure his position by abandoning 
Labour and forming a coalition with his former opponent, 
Mr. Philp. This he did after securing the passing of an Act 
‘No. 5) which incidentally removed the postal vote and a Wages 
Boards Act (No. 8), and the result of the agreement is em- 
bodied in the Act No. 16 which has been mentioned above. 
That Act has never been put into force, and whether it will 
be put into force is doubtful, but it must be admitted that 
the existence of the Act will greatly alter the position of the 
Upper House. Prior to the passing of the Act it would have 
been constitutional for the Governor to swamp the Upper 
House if desirable at any time. The thing had been done 
more than once in New South Wales, and the principle was 
in effect conceded in 1892 in the case of New Zealand, as is 
shown by the fact that the Government in 1907 selected 
the anniversary of Lord Ripon’s dispatch of 18921 as the 
Dominion Day of New Zealand. Now it is clear that as 
a matter of constitutional practice swamping should not take 
place, as another means of deciding disputes between the 
two Houses has been decided upon. It remains to be seen 
V Parl. Pap., H. C. 198, 1893-4, p. 39.