ALFRED BURVILL, Farmer, Torbay Junction, sworn and examined:

11629. To the CHAIRMAN: I took up my land 21 years ago and have been on it for 17 years. With my sons I have 400 acres at Grassmere and 200 acres at Tennessee. At Grassmere we have about 90 acres cleared; it is all fenced. At Tennessee about 30 acres is properly cleared and 30 acres partially cleared. All of this 60 acres is fenced. We have a house on both places and the necessary buildings, seven horses, 12 head of cattle, and five pigs. At Tennessee we have three acres of orchard. We were making a good living until the drainage scheme was put in, but have gone back ever since. When the scheme was put in I had taken enough off the Grassmere land to spend about £1,000 at Tennessee, and in addition I bought another 100 acres at Grassmere.

11630. To Mr. VENN: I could grow 20 tons of cabbages to the acre and about five tons of potatoes, on an average.

11631. What do you suggest to overcome the difficulty?—I suggest that the flood gates should be removed and former conditions reverted to. If this were done I should be quite satisfied. The year the scheme was finished I lost from £600 to £800 worth of potatoes. The land is now mineralised owing to the stoppage of the water. I consider that I have lost fully £2,000 owing to the drainage scheme. If it were not for the scheme I could average £10 per acre per annum. The department has drained a number of the swamps satisfactorily, but what we blame the department for is putting in flood gates to take the water off, which do not answer the purpose. I have here a report by a geologist on these districts which I should like to show you. (Presented.) I could not understand how such good swamp land should require to be so heavily fertilised and I got an analysis made. At this time I knew that the soil from Denmark down was similar and I wanted to find out where the minerals came from. I am aware that some of the karri soils are mineralised and wanted the Government to have an analysis made. I approached the Department of Agriculture and received a reply to the effect that the experts of the department did not consider that any expense was justified in this connection at the present juncture. It was considered preferably to await the completion of the drainage scheme in the district and then, if the resources of the Government Analytical Office would admit of it, the department would endeavour to furnish further information. With regard to the second class land, I should like to say that if you gave this land away here it is no good, as the lack of railway facilities prevents a man from using the land. Between Marbellup and Redmond is a distance of eight miles. The railway goes up a valley of second class land. The settlers, who are Englishmen, when they came out and took up the land which adjoins the railway, wrote to the Railway Department asking for a siding. After getting a refusal they wrote to the department again and got this answer:—

Railway Commissioner's Office, Perth. Referring to your letter of the 9th inst. relative to the construction of a siding between Marbellup and Redmond, I am directed to inform you that the Deputy Commissioner is unable to agree to put in a siding on the terms proposed by you. The only alternative is for the settlers to join together and pay the cost of construction of a private siding, which will be estimated on receipt of the necessary application with a survey fee of £5. The rental of the siding would be £15 per annum, and it would be necessary for you to pay the usual shunting charges of 2s. and 4s. per four and eight-wheeled wagon respectively.

They then asked Mr. Price, the member for the district, to urge their case and he waited upon Mr. Collier, the Minster for Railways, but he would do nothing for them. In regard to the roads board area, controlled by the Albany Roads Board, the district is 3,500 square miles and five-sixths of this is Crown land. The remaining one-sixth includes the leases as well. There is not a township in this area with the exception of Albany. We have put the unimproved values up to the limit for the purpose of rating. We are paying 3 1/4d. per acre where I am, for instance. We did this with the object of getting the Government to subsidise the rates, and the first year we paid this the Government subsidy was cut down by half. The subsidy, therefore, is not adequate, but if there were good roads a lot of second class land would be taken up. We are making the roads from point to point through Government land. In regard to the survey of roads, it is found often that the original survey cannot be adhered to as road construction is made impracticable. When the road has to be diverted the Government insists on the owners of the old road purchasing the old road site even after they have resumed another portion of their property for the new road.

(The witness retired.)