142 A HISTORY OF THE COLONY OF VICTORIA 



gation of a treaty was a tacit declaration of war, the Council ignored 

 it at the time, and on the 20th of August rejected the Bill on the 

 ground that the disputed vote was included in violation of the usages 

 of the Imperial Parliament, which were binding on the Victorian 

 Legislature ; and further, that the vote was in itself unconstitutional 

 and mischievous, distinctly tending to corruption in the public service. 

 Two days later the Governor received important State Papers from 

 each of the conflicting bodies. The Council hastened to give their 

 reasons for objecting to the grant to Lady Darling, both as to sub- 

 stance and form, but intimated that if the objectionable item was 

 withdrawn, the Appropriation Bill for the general supplies would be 

 promptly passed. The memorandum submitted by the Ministry 

 was more embarrassing. Mr. McCulloch was averse to a dissolution 

 except as a last resort, because he believed that however unanimous 

 the verdict of the country might be, the Legislative Council would 

 be equal to ignoring it. Therefore he recommended the Governor 

 to prorogue Parliament with a view to immediately inaugurating a 

 fresh session wherein the Bill in dispute could be sent up again to 

 the Council, payments being meanwhile made under the provisions 

 of the Crown Remedies Act. The Governor considered the proro- 

 gation premature until he had consulted those who were responsible 

 for the rejection of the Appropriation Bill, whereupon the Ministry 

 resigned. On the 23rd of August the Governor sent a memorandum 

 to Mr. Fellows, the leader of the Opposition in the Council, inviting 

 his advice on the question at issue. Mr. Fellows declined to give 

 it unless he were placed in the position of a Minister, and after some 

 further resultless correspondence with Mr. Fraser, M.L.C., His 

 Excellency asked the McCulloch Ministry to withdraw their resig- 

 nation, and agreed to follow their advice. A temporary Supply Bill 

 was passed in the Assembly and sent to the Council. It not only 

 had the objectionable preamble, but its legality was open to question, 

 as it covered a round sum of money which had not been appropri- 

 ated to specific purposes by Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, to save 

 confusion, the Council reluctantly passed it, with a proviso that the 

 vote in dispute should not be paid out of the money thus made 

 available. 



Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of September, to meet 



