505. Has not the system been universally condemned?—Terribly; there has been such a lot of frauds.

506. Are not the persons engaged in the supervision and destruction of rabbits more or less interested in the perpetuation of the pest?—Yes.

507. By Mr. Richardson: Have you been through any of the pastoral country in Western Australia?—About 400 miles North; I have only been here about six months.

508. Whereabouts?—Field's find and Mingenew.

509. Have you noticed anything in the nature or condition of our pastoral lands here, and the country generally, to lead you to suppose there is some special feature that will prevent the rabbits increasing and flourishing?—From what I have seen it is just the place they would thrive in, particularly where what they call the salt bush is.

510. You think it the sort of country?—Just the sort they would clean right out.

511. In the South-Western district (that evergreen scrub country) do you think rabbits would flourish or increase there?—I do not think they would flourish in what they call the sand plain.

512. I do not mean the sand plain, but the kind of country there is about the Darling Ranges?—I have not been there, but I should imagine they would. I have seen them thrive on similar country in Victoria.

513. You would not think of supposing or assuming that rabbits are not likely to flourish here?—They are sure to flourish. And they would be utter ruination to the State, because, in the vast extent of country where there is no human being, it would be impossible to get rid of them.

514. Once they got in?—You would never get rid of them, because there is plenty for them to live on.

515. Is it a fact within your knowledge that, in Victoria, when the rabbits were first let loose on purpose, several attempts were not successful, and the rabbits did not increase?—When I came to the colonies 42 years ago, wild cats were very numerous, and killed all the rabbits. Barwon Park was the first place.

516. That is the place I allude to?—There several trenches were cut, and other steps taken.

517. To protect the rabbits?—Yes, and they got away, though he ultimately succeeded in getting them to stay.

518. But there was some difficulty before the rabbits flourished?—Yes.

519. In the first place, I mean?—Yes.

520. And so it would not surprise you to learn that early efforts made here to establish rabbits failed?—I would not be surprised at all.

521. Would you infer from that that rabbits would not increase or flourish once they got started?— Once they get started there is no pulling them up at all, though they have a great enemy in the wild cat.

522. From what you know, they are still engaged in fencing in Queensland?—I do not think they are now, but I have not been there for four or five years.

523. But they were fencing then?—Yes.

524. That was the primary means adopted, followed up by such means as trapping and poisoning?—Yes, they have rabbit inspectors there. I did not see a single rabbit on the Queensland side, but plenty of tracks on the New South Wales side.

525. Then the means seems to be somewhat effective in keeping the rabbits out?—Yes.

526. By Hon. R. G. Burges: And what as to the means of destroying the rabbits at the fence?—At some stations they have a trap like a V, and at the end of the trap there is a place into which they get and cannot get out, and thousands are caught in that way. But the rabbits are burrowing under the fences, and the people are getting disheartened that everything is neglected.

527. Do you mean the boundary fence?—No; I was speaking of private individuals.

528. Are they not bound under an Act of Parliament to keep the rabbits down?—I cannot tell you what is the cause.

529. By Mr. Richardson: No Act of Parliament can make a man do what he has no money to do?—Owing to this the land is not worth having there.

530. By Mr. Burges: As a practical man, if the rabbits increase here, do you think it would have the effect of hardening the price of meat and stock in the country?—It would, to a very great extend.

531. Would it not raise the price of all stock and meat to the consumers if the rabbits were to eat up all the pasture?—It would be a terrible loss to the pastoralist in that way.

532. Would it not be a loss to the general community?—A frightful loss.

533. By the Chairman: Do you think it would raise the price of meat to the consumer?—It must do. It is bad enough now, and what would it be if the land would not carry stock?

                                                                                                    (The witness retired.)

The Commission adjourned until 3 p.m. the next Wednesday.

                                                                                                   ------------------------------