1 Jury, 1901.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 37 
believe, can be done. Take the way the Government got rid of their land by 
selection: A man takes up 640 acres, and he pays for it, say, from £50 to £60 
per year. In how many instances, where the land was good, did that man 
forfeit his selection? Now, when he paid that £50 or £60 for ten years, 
and the land had become his own property, surely it would be safe 
enough for the Government to advance him £200 or £300. No money 
was advanced to these men when they took up their selections. Yet 
the rents were always met, and the men were faithful to their covenants. 
Surely they could be quite as faithful if a little money was advanced. 
to enable them to stock that land and make further improvements. 
Whoever has the letting out of this money will have to take into consideration 
the character of the borrower, and to what purpose he intends to devote it. 
Farmers are placed at a disadvantage in several ways in the borrowing of 
money. Country land is not generally regarded by townspeople as the most 
satisfactory security. Then there are the long distances from town, which 
make valuation expenses heavy. A farmer, again, is not a practical business 
man, and does not know how to work these loans out to his own advantage. 
Many of these disabilities would pass away, however, with a good board, and 
the farmer would be placed on the same footing as the man in the town. I, for 
my part, do not think there is anything very dangerous in the proposed scheme. 
As for the ten-million loan, it is well known that it can hardly be said that money 
was distributed in business loans. It was thrown amongst the people anyhow ; 
and, after all, it has not had a very deteriorating effect upon the State. As for 
the danger of money being obtained too easily, safeguards can easily be made 
to prevent any danger arising from that. 
Mr. Jouyx D. Jonnsron (Mosman River): Nothing could assist a farmer 
better than if he could get money when he required it, and care were taken that 
the money was spent on the land. It is difficult to see how that man could be 
injured by the money ; and, for my part, I think it is the best thing that could 
happen to him. In our district, we have inaugurated a system of lending money 
to canegrowers, which has worked admirably, and so far we have not lost a 
penny through it. By it many a man has been enabled to put an area of land 
under cane and cultivate it who would not otherwise have been able to do so. 
Mr. J. W. Lex (Zillmere): This is a very important subject we are 
discussing, and I think we ought to grasp the real situation, if we can, for the 
men who are struggling upon the lands of the State endeavouring to make 
homes for themselves and their families. I myself have been struggling here for 
nearly forty years. I entered in 1866 upon a piece of Government land that I 
had to pay £1 an acre for, and I had to pay for itin eight years. I had to clear it, 
and had to pay my £10 a year to the Government at the rate of half-a-crown per 
acre per year. I wellremember the difficulties we had in clearing the forest trees 
from off the land, the fencing, and the ploughing ; and I maintain that had there 
been a bank from which the Government could have lent me cheap money it 
would have been one of the greatest blessings, and would have given wonderful 
assistance to me. ‘There are numbers of people starting to-day as I did thirty- 
five years ago. J am thankful to say that if the bank were started to-morrow I 
would have no need of it, but the time has been when J have needed it. I was 
ultimately compelled to borrow money at the rate of 12 per cent., and it was 
years before I could liberate myself from that burden. Some of the men who 
have borne the heat and burden of the day have sunk themselves into 
difficulties, and cheap money to them now would be a great boon. As they 
now are, they are almost certain to sink under the weight of heavy interest. 
The Government has money in the Savings Bank on which they pay 24 per 
cent. to depositors. If they could let that money out at 5 per cent. it would 
be a great thing for many struggling farmers who now have to pay their 8 per 
cent. J see no reason why a cheap money scheme should not be adopted. No 
one wishes to jeopardise the Government, nor is it right that it should be 
jeopardised. But the first few years of a man struggling on the land makes or 
