succeeded in securing a quarter of a million of money for his department, and a large portion of it was devoted to bonuses. The first bonuses were paid on the export of butter, which so stimulated the dairying industry as to result in the present system of creameries. With reference to the village settlements in New Zealand, I have not had the pleasure of reading Mr. Reeves's book, but when in New Zealand, about twelve years ago, I made an investigation into the village settlements there. Of course, we progress with the times, and doubtless the New Zealand Government has progressed. The village settlements in New Zealand were started from the same causes which started them in Queensland— namely, to find employment for the unemployed. But the Government, in starting them, made a complete blunder of it in the areas that they set apart for the settlers. I inspected those settlements, and have still plans of them, and the areas that the people were put on ranged from 5 to 40 acres of land. The Government advanced a certain amount of money for house-building and fencing. I remember meeting a young farmer in the neighbourhood of one of the settlements, and he told me that before the Government sent the unemployed to take up these small blocks he had been able to find employment at times on the roads in addition to the work he did on his own farm. After the establishment of the Government settlement, however, the old settlers were compelled to leave the district to seek for employment when they desired it, and this was the only one of those settlements which could be called successful. It was particularly fortunate as regards land and market, being in the immediate vicinity of Timaru and Oamaru. We know the results which followed the efforts of the Government in this direction here. They were a failure in every instance, and in the early days, at any rate, the settlements were a failure in New Zealand.

Mr. R. S. AIKEN (Gooburrum): To improve the position of farmers, one gentleman has read a paper to assist the farmer, and the other gentleman has written a paper asking the farmers to assist themselves-two different things. I differ with them both, and maintain that the present unfortunate position of the farmer in Queensland is caused simply by himself. With regard to farmers in the Bundaberg district in particular, who are not in a good financial position, it has been caused simply by the fact that money has been too easily obtained, or, in other words, it has been too cheap. It would have been better for those farmers if the money had been dear. In driving about Mackay a day or two ago, I noticed that there were a number of sugar lands lying idle, and a number of acres of ground that were not being used. I take it that the cause of that was that those who had been working them had failed for exactly the same reason as those in the Bundaberg district-that is, the money they obtained was obtained on a false basis. It was obtained by their handing over their deeds, and, on the strength of the deeds, they obtained advances on what I call the unearned increment. They expected to pay back this money from the earning value of the ground. Two different things. A man may obtain a selection from the Government at from 15s. to £1 per acre, but, as population increases, the land increases in value to £20 per acre. The owner gets short of money, goes to the bank, and, on the strength of his deeds, he obtains an advance of £15 per acre. He obtained that ground for 15s., and population could not possibly increase its earning value to that extent. Population, however, enabled him to borrow this £15; but when he came to pay back this money which he had borrowed on the unearned increment, he failed. Had the difficulty of obtaining money been greater, probably he would still have the land to-day. We have at the present time a sympathetic Minister for Agriculture in the person of the Hon. J. V. Chataway, and I sincerely hope he will not be carried away by ideas emanating from what I may term a morbid mind, certainly not a practical one, in the direction of assisting us farmers. We have a good man in Mr. Chataway, and, should he advance any scheme to assist farmers, I trust he will make quite sure that in his endeavour to help them he is not hastening their ruin.

Mr. J. HUDSON (Rosewood): If I were lending money, I would be sure the security was ample, and that there was little danger of my being let in

There may have been farms that have been abandoned, but, if there are, I know of very few of them, and if they have been abandoned it has been owing to a too high rate of interest and a bad bargain. A man naturally asks for as much money as he can get; and if the financial institution is so foolish as to lend more money than the place is worth, then the blame is with itself. If a man, however, is charged a too high rate of interest, how can he be expected to pay it and I think co-operation is a grand thing, and one which we should encourage in every way. I have in my eye a number of co-operative creameries that have sprung up in our district; and if we go on, we shall do greater things yet. Mr. Peek deprecates Government aid in the shape of lending money, but I differ with him. If a municipality wants money, it can get it cheaper through the Government than in any other way, and I think farmers could also get it much cheaper through the same source.

Mr. T. MACKAY (Cairns): Mr. Aiken stated that the earning value of land was not increased by population. The earning value of land depends upon communication and other things, and people taking up land away from settlement are handicapped by want of roads and railways, which they cannot obtain until increased population comes. Therefore, I say that the increase of settlement largely increases the value of the land. In parts of the Cairns district, 10 or 15 years ago, we had no communication with markets, but now, owing to tramways, &c., the value of the land has increased a hundredfold. Its value has increased in every shape and form, and this increased value is owing to the increase in population.

I

Mr. C. F. M. FISCHER (Zillmere): With regard to Mr. Peek's paper, I have been casting about in my mind, especially since he read his draft Bill, to think of something to which it could be likened, and the only thing which occurred to my mind is a Chinese lady of high caste. I understand that, owing to her feet having been compressed in her childhood, it is difficult for them to carry the body, and the lady is consequently rather unfitted for the duties of life. notice in Mr. Peek's scheme that he insisted that those who entered into the co-operation should be shareholders. The shares, if I understood rightly, were to be not more than £1 each, and no one was to be allowed more than 20 shares. When he further elaborated his scheme, its machinery seemed so large that I thought of the Chinese lady. The weight of the machinery and the things that were required to be done were utterly out of proportion to the size of the feet. I have not had much experience in co-operation, but I have still had a little, and, so far as theory was concerned, I used to be very fond of it. When we came to put it into practice in our district amongst ourselves, it did not somehow work very satisfactorily, and before very long our company went into voluntary liquidation. I can understand co-operation assuming such great proportions in some of the older countries of the world, but nearly all of these voluntary unions that have been successful have been brought about by external pressure, and this pressure has been so severely felt by certain individuals that combination is brought about even against their natural inclinations. This pressure, too, keeps them together until the organisation becomes so strong that dissolution is not easy. But I am thankful to say that that state of affairs has not yet arrived in Queensland so far as our farmers and agriculturists are concerned, and I trust it never will. I think under ordinary circumstances we manage fairly well in our individual capacities, and I think that that is one of the reasons why co-operations have taken so little hold of the agricultural population of the colony. When the time comes-and I trust it is far distant-as it has come in other countries where the competition was so keen and the pressure from without was so great, and where the Government in its wisdom or unwisdom utterly refused to assist the farmer in the manner recommended by Dr. Thomatis, no doubt co-operation will have to be resorted to as the next best thing. When the state of affairs arrives, however, that will necessitate co-operation, I am afraid that it will have to start on bigger feet than those outlined on Mr. Peek's scheme-that is, if it is to be of any practical use, and not for ornament. In connection with co-operation, it might be just as well

if I concluded with a few statements of my own experience, and it will also show how outside pressure brought about co-operation in our own case. Eight or nine years ago, the pineapple industry, in which we are much interested in Zillmere, was beginning to arrive at that stage of production which necessitated finding an outside market. Prices were getting very low, and we looked about for some means of extending our market. We came to the conclusion it would be best to co-operate, and we finally formed a limited liability company for the purpose of canning our surplus fruit. We started beautifully, with everything nicely arranged, but after we had made up one year's crop, and had sent our produce about in different directions, the venture did not prove so successful as it had been painted. As is generally the case where people drift into co-operation, money was not too plentiful with them, and when the second call was made very few answered it, and the result finally was that the company went into voluntary liquidation. However, I am pleased to say that our experience has not been the experience of all co-operative societies.

THIRD SESSION.

TUESDAY, 27TH JUNE, 1899, 2:30 P.M.

Business was commenced by the reading of the following paper :

THE STATE IN ITS RELATION TO THE FARMER.

By E. SWAYNE, Homebush, Mackay.

I do not propose in the following paper to enter into a learned dissertation upon the relative functions of the State as regards the agricultural industry of this colony as a whole, but more directly to draw attention to those features which I believe are of importance should we at any time decide that an organised effort should be made by the farmers to secure attention to their requirements at the hands of this or any future Government. It is commonly said that farmers are notoriously the least satisfied section of the community, and that it is the farmer's privilege to grumble. I hope to be able to show in this paper that if he does at times grumble he is not altogether to blame, and that he has some right on his side when he asks to be heard, and seeks attention to his requirements. It is a stale truism that all wealth comes from the soilthat the nation's foodstuffs and its clothing are the primary produce of the land, without which it is hopeless to endeavour to build up a nation, and upon which all other undertakings ultimately depend. We may admit at once that some nations may thrive by manufactures mainly, by lending money, or by acting as the changinghouse of the world; but their functions would be gone were there no agriculturists to supply the basis, in their own country or elsewhere, upon which the secondary industries rest. And no nation will knowingly neglect the primary industries of the land, if it has the land necessary to enable those industries to exist, but rather it will encourage them to the utmost. Broadly, these principles are accepted on all hands; yet the tendency of most Governments is to foster those industries which are of secondary importance, tend to encourage the aggregation of large populations in the towns, and initiate at the expense of those living on the soil large manufacturing interests which cannot fail to attract men from the land it is supposed to be desirable to settle. This tendency has been somewhat checked of late, and now and again we find some reversion to the common-sense policy which one would have thought could never have been lost sight of. To make the greatest possible use of the national asset of the land may be considered the first duty and the leading political principle of all Governments; and it is with a view to showing how inadequately the conception of what the farmer wants, and has a right to ask for, that this paper has been written. We Queenslanders at the present time have not a very great deal to complain of, though the conversion of our statesmen to the policy of pushing forward the agricultural industry is of somewhat recent date. Under the tariff of Sir Hugh Nelson, many of the implements we use on our farms are permitted to enter the country free of duty ; but there is still much more to be done to relieve the farmer of the burdens cast upon him for the benefit of the whole community. His foodstuffs are still taxed, and this means not only greater payment by him for articles of his own consumption, but also increased cost of feeding the labour which he employs. In the same way the ordinary cost of clothing is increased, and the State might well consider the advisableness of reducing these lines, and transferring the obligations of finding revenue to those who are not

satisfied with the simple fare and the working clothes and the men he employs. In every possible form the burdens should be taken off an industry which is the groundwok of the prosperity of a State, and which, in a colony such as this, is the groundwork of the successful and profitable utilisation of our national asset, the land. Having freed the farmer of the burdens upon his industry, the State has next to remove the trammels of ignorance. It must be confessed that many are farming in this colony who have had no training before, while few have been fortunate enough to secure that practical education while alone entitles a man to rank as a farmer of the first order. Yet it is a curious commentary on the way in which the agricultural industry is regarded, as compared with other branches of industry, that agricultural education has only been brought to the front after years of agitation, and long after the State has initiated the system of spending thousands of pounds annually upon and subsidies to technical schools for teaching all manner of subjects entirely foreign to agricultural. Even in our national schools there is little or nothing of the great primary industry of the country taught, and our youngsters, and those of the towns, grow up with a fair groundwork of knowledge to enable them to enter into commercial pursuits or adopt learned professions, but with practically no information as to the great subject, which is generally admitted to be of the first importance. It is hardly asking too much to seek to have an elementary agricultural education added to the bookkeeping, smattering of Latin, and inkling of music which at present is conferred at the expense of the whole community, including the farmers, upon the children of the country. There is a tendency to regard any expenditure on behalf of agriculture as a doubtful benefit to the community, because no immediate result, in £ s. d., is to be observed; but he would be a bold man who would say the same thing of the money expended in helping our schools of arts, our grammar schools, or even our primary schools. Yet surely we have a right to ask of the State that we shall have, always and regularly, at least no less advantages in our calling than are conferred upon those engaged in the secondary business of distribution, but I hope and believe that the outcome of these gatherings will be that the farmers of the North, South, and West will arrive at a mutual understanding that will enable them to combine both in the co-operation and disposal of their produce, and by, perhaps, through the exercise of a little give-and-take in connection with any prejudices that may have arisen, “for after all our interests on all important questions are identical," the formulation of a platform, to be supported by us all, that will contain our legislative requirements as a united body. The fluctuation of party Government would then give us little concern, as we should always be strong enough to protect our common interest; and next to education I think we may place the necessity of the Government assisting the farmer in the matter of labour. In this respect not only the farmer but the labourer himself would largely benefit. I see no reason why the example of other places should not be followed in Queensland, and a direct effort made by the State to keep the labour of the colony distributed in those centres where it can find remunerative employment. Happily we have not recently experienced much of the unemployed problem in Queensland; but if to-morrow large numbers of men came into a town and said they were unemployed, there is little reason to believe that an official could be found to place before them information as to the places where labour is required, and the rates of wages to be obtained. Instead, however, a police magistrate would dole them out free rations, until their constant applications for relief would force him to tell them to go elsewhere. I contend that it is the duty of the State, both to the farmer and labourer, to see that full value is obtained for all bonâ fide labour in the colony, and that each industry should have sufficient labour to carry on its production. In the matter of legislation we are still far behind the times. Agriculture in this colony lacks nearly all the progressive legislation of older States. The farmer can be defrauded with bogus fertilisers, and he has no remedy that is worth calling one. Agricultural drainage is almost an impossibility, except where groups of farmers can be got to agree among themselves; whereas it may reasonably be contended that no farmer should be allowed to stand in the way of the progress of of the colonies to

his neighbours. Then, again, the Government organises the pour control, &c., but

carry out many necessary matters, such as local government,

we have yet to find the Government taking equally energetic steps to organise the agriculturists, so as to enable them to successfully manage their business of production and export, though the importance of these is invariably admitted on all hands. In money matters, the State has fitfully helped the farmers, but such questions as the limitation of mortgages, cheap money advances, and the many other questions affecting the financial position of the agriculturists should be placed on a properly organised basis-the one clear and distinct system that can be understood by the farmersand make it abundantly clear that every legitimate aid is being afforded them by the State.

It is not a wise thing, in my opinion, to help one branch of agriculture more than another. It has a tendency to create a feeling of distrust between the farmers, which is used with effect by demagogues and pretended farmers' friends for their own purposes, and to the general disorganisation of the farmers in their relations with the body politic. Lastly, I would touch briefly upon the question of the franchise I know I am on very debatable ground, but I contend that the farmer should look the position squarely in the face. Now he is just one man out of many. He produces and exports and pays the interest bill, while others live more or less directly upon the fruits of his labour. Yet so little is the importance of the farmer recognised that so long as he has one vote there are plenty who contend that they should rest satisfied, even if his vote is discounted twenty times over by an equal privilege given to every other person in the country, whether he produces or whether he is a bird of passage. In the foregoing I do not wish it to be thought that I am writing in a petulant spirit or cavilling against those in power. We can all admit that the progress of agriculture in Queensland of late years affords ample evidence that the great producing industries are not hampered more than elsewhere, but I am urging further advance and greater recognition of the importance of agriculture throughout Queensland. I trust I have succeeded in drawing some attention to a few vital points on the main question, which I regard as the organisation of the agricultural interests. Our aims as producers from the soil are identical, and we should stand together not only in this colony but throughout Australia. It is a scathing_commentary on the supineness of the farmers that while all economic writers admit the great and indeed the paramount importance of agriculture, that that importance is apparently forgotten by the great bulk of the people whose political privilege it is to have a determining voice in directing the State's relation to the farmer.

On the conclusion of Mr. Swayne's paper, the discussion, which had been adjourned for lunch, was resumed.

Mr. G. W. PorT (Proserpine): Mr. Fischer took rather a pessimistic view of co-operation, but for my own part I consider it an admirable system, and I have been connected with central mills for 5 years. The central mills are established on the co-operative principle, and they have done a vast amount of good to the country. Mr. Peek's paper on co-operation I consider an excellent one, and I must congratulate him upon it. The views expressed therein are in accordance with my own; and although there are one or two little points upon which I do not agree with him, I shall let them pass. If, as far as it extends to the central mills, co-operation were carried out in the spirit in which it was intended, it would be productive of far more good than it has been. As the central mills now are, there is a certain amount of farce in them, because those men owning large areas of land are benefiting by the farmers who settle upon them, reaping, as it were, an unearned increment. The value of those lands, previous to the establishment of the mills, was very small, but since then the price has gone up considerably. To a certain extent I blame the present Government for not making greater use of the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act, and not buying up all those lands in the vicinity of proposed central mills. That land, previous to the erection of the mills, could have been purchased at a very low rate-in fact, for about a fifth of its value at the present time. If the Government had done this, I am sure the central mills would have been in a far better position than they are to-day, simply because a far larger number of farmers would have been able to have settled on the land. Land in the vicinity of mills, that is now worth, say, £5 per acre, could have been purchased previous to the erection of the mills, at 10s.; and if the Government had taken it at that price, they could have let farmers have it at, say, £, which would have resulted in much more land being put under cane. With regard to co-operation, our Government subsidises the funds of agricultural associations, and therefore recognises its value. Co-operation is a democratic principle. As for cheap money to farmers, I do not altogether hold with Dr. Thomatis in this matter, because my experience is that if a man is able to get money at a cheap rate he grasps more than is really good for him. When he takes the money he, perhaps, sees his way clear to repay it-that is, if he has good seasons. But if the season fails he has to encumber himself to pay the interest, and, therefore, I cannot support cheap money to farmers under any consideration. As far as co-operation is concerned