Mr. W. Paterson, continued.

920. By Mr. Richardson: A lot of natural improvements?—Yes.

921. By the Chairman: Therefore, as you are satisfied in your own mind that these rabbits are coming, unless some drastic measures are taken, you are satisfied they most probably will invade your clients' properties, and you must see that, to carry on the settlement which the Agricultural Bank has been very largely conducive to, steps will have to be taken by the Government to give increased advances on account of the expense; that will be absolutely necessary to make your securities worth the paper they are written on?—The increased advances could not be made on the properties we hold; we only give a fair margin. As it stands now, we cannot do much more.

922. By Mr. Richardson: There is another point that ought to be brought out. Will you tell the Commission what is the total amount, roughly, you have advanced to the agriculturists?—I have not asked about that lately.

923. In round figures?—A sum of £132,495.

924. You have told us that, if the rabbits come and spread, there will be a necessity to fence each holding or group of holdings. This you estimate at £160,000. If you have advanced £132,000, and it requires another £160,000 to make the holdings rabbit-proof to sustain their value, where is the £160,000 to come from. Can the Government increase it?—Our securities would cover, take them as a whole, three times the value.

925. You think they would sustain three times the value?—Perhaps a little more than that.

926. You are still met with this position: It will require £160,000 more to make the holdings rabbit-proof to sustain their value. If that £160,000 has to be expended, the holders will come to you and say, "We have not the money, we cannot find it, and if you cannot give it to us we must throw up." The Government must make largely increased advances, or suffer the depreciation of the securities?—The Bank could not do that under the present Act.

927. Would that not be the dilemma you would be in?—Still we have the extra value.

928. It would not be there if the rabbits were there?—If the fence is put up there would be an extra value.

929. But would that not bring you back to the position before the fence was up?—I think we should be a little better off.

930. By Mr. Loton: On the holdings to which you have made advances to the extent you have named, supposing the rabbits encroached and were doing damage on the holdings, it would become absolutely necessary to fence them in, either singly or in groups. Would the present holders be enabled to expend the amount of money required to fence the holdings in, either singly or in groups, and make a payable concern of their holdings?—I should say not more than one-half of the clients would be able to do so. Perhaps one-half; the others would not be able to do so.

931. What would become of the other half?—It is very hard to say.

932. That being the case, if it were necessary to fence the holdings in six months, do you not think it would be advisable that some national system of fencing should be inaugurated to avoid the necessity of fencing these holdings singly or in groups: do you think, in the interests of the State, it would be advisable to have some national system of fencing?—Certainly; if it is necessary to keep out the rabbits, it is the right thing to do.

933. By the Chairman: Rather than that the individual should do it?—It is a national thing.

934. Shortly, the gist of your evidence is, that if the rabbits come on to your clients' holdings, your securities will decrease very enormously in value?—They certainly will not increase; yes, I think they will decrease.

935. Very enormously?—I think they might. You see they do not hold large blocks of land. If a man can put up a mile of fencing I ask him to do it, so as to be prepared when the rabbits arrive; always to the Eastward.

936. By Mr. Richardson: You recognise that if a man puts up the posts and wires he has the foundation of a rabbit-proof fence, and he only has to add the wire netting to it?—Yes.

937. By Hon. R. G. Burges: Is settlement induced in the country under these conditions?—The more expense you put a person to the less chance there is of settling; there is no doubt about that.

938. It would stop the people settling on the country?—Up to the present time the applications for advances have been very many. They are increasing rather than decreasing. I do not know why that is, I am sure, in the face of all this. There are a great many applications coming forward.

(The witness retired.)

Mr. Donald Norman McLeod, examined.

939. By the Chairman: You are largely interested in pastoral pursuits in this State, I believe?—Yes; fairly so.

940. You were lately a resident in Victoria?—That is so.

941. You were a member of the Victoria Parliament, I believe?—That is correct.

942. Will you tell us where you were member for, and how long?—Portland district.