1 Juxy, 1901.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 33 
“Tf they could bring in a Bill, it would have no remedial effect on the farmers in this 
country. The great majority of them, through hard times and bad seasons, had had 
to hypothecate their deeds for more than 50 per cent. of their value, and no system 
could be devised by which money could be safely lent above 50 per cent. of the 
valuation. He was decidedly against a State Bank, and thought the time had not 
arrived when they could introduce the Credit Foncier system, or use the State credit 
for the purpose of giving cheap money to the farmers. He believed if the Govern- 
ment started any scheme of the kind they would be ‘had’ in the beginning in valuation. 
He thought the farmers would get more benefit from dealing with those institutions 
which jsad made Queensland inthe past. About six years ago Sir H. M. Nelsonannounced 
that he would be prepared to give favourable consideration to any scheme for 
advancing cheap money to farmers, the principles of which might commend them- 
selves to his judgment, and which were consistent with sound principles of political 
economy. This announcement was characterised at the time by cheap-money 
advocates as a shuffle. There was certainly a sort of hocus-pocus style about it, 
which would translate this way, that way, or any other way. It was as Clear as mud, 
and did good work, as the candidates before the farming constituencies called it 
a promise, and worked the promise for all it was worth in securing support for the 
Nelson party. 
The late Sir J. R. Dickson declared the matter to be one that could 
not be undertaken by the Government, but that it might be left to divisional boards. 
So far as progressive finance is concerned, the placing of bank directors and others 
directly interested in banks at the helm of the State is like appointing the wolf as 
guardian of the sheep. 
Mr. Riithning has for many years been earnestly endeavouring to popularise the 
system of land credit banks, but all the thanks he got for his pains was to be dubbed 
a “socialistic lawyer” by the late Sir Thos. McIlwraith. 
‘the late Mr. Chataway’s scheme, which was passed by the Assembly last session, 
was rejected by the Council. While we would naturally expect a few weeps over 
such a tragic event, not a solitary weep has as yet been recorded on the part of our 
representatives in Parliament. 
It may be gathered from the foregoing that the Individualist party concedes to us 
no more reasonable grounds for hope than the party who hankers after our complete 
extinction that their forward moveinent may not be retarded. 
It is 'eyond dispute that the political power which farmers can wield is very much 
below what it ought to be, and what 1t could be. if they would only organise themselves 
for the advancement of their own class to the extent that the poor tenant farmers and 
agricultural labourers of Ireland have done. he agricultural interests of this State 
are moving rapidly towards a front place, and we are becoming a power that no political 
party can afford to trifle with. We are entitled to a more just reward for our labour, 
and a more equitable share of the wealth which we produce, so that we may raise 
o rselve» from our life of drudgery to a social state more in keeping with our value ‘to 
the State socially and economically. Our representatives in Parliament should not be 
party hacks. How frequently hive we witnessed in the past the influence of farming 
representatives neutralised by voting against each other at the bidding of their party ? 
On occasion they have sacrificed their principles and th ir constituents’ interests 
because of their beng b und hand and foot by the fetters of party loyalty. Common 
sense should prevent the division int» hostile camps of those whom a common purpose 
oughteto unite. !t may yet be necessary for farmers to im at the balance of power 
in Parli»ment—a policy which has in a marked degree succeeded in gaining concessions 
to the wage-earning classes of other States. 
In concluding, it must be confessed that this paper has lengthened out far beyond 
what was originally anticipated, and many interesting features of this subject, which 
is one of world-wide controversial interest, must of necessity be left untouched. Let 
it be clearly understood, however, that the writ-r does not plead for favours, or for 
any concession in conflict with the interests of other classes of the community. The 
non-possumus attitude of the present and past ‘covernments towards this vital question 
not only excites our wonder but provokes our indignation. We look upon it that high 
interest ~a contrivance for putting the money of the many into the pockets of the few 
—is beneficial chiefly to foreign syndicates and absentees, who draw away the wealth 
of the country (as shown by the large excess of exports over imports), and pay little or 
nothing for the protection of their property or the administration of the Government 
generally. Believing, as we do, that every statesman worthy of the name should aim 
ai a more equal distribution of wealth, we see that big interest few receive it, many 
pay it works in an opposite direction, and tends towards concentration, thereby 
affecting the purchasing power of the community in general. If the majority had 
c 
