The first legislative recognition of this danger is seen in the Crown Lands Act of 1884, which constituted Local Land Boards, consisting of not more than three members to be appointed by the Governor in Council, which were to consider all applications for land, insure the due fulfilment of the conditions, residential or other, which are attached to different forms of tenure, and appraise the rents of pastoral leases and the rate of compensation for improvements. The practice of the Ministry has been to appoint as chairman of a Board some experienced official of the Crown Lands Department and, as his colleagues, persons recommended by the residents in the district. I am assured that this system of Land {38} Boards, whose decisions are subject to an appeal to the Land Court, has worked satisfactorily and that confidence has been promoted by the publicity of the proceedings. A full statement is published periodically, for each district, of the areas still open for settlement and of the conditions under which they can be taken up: the Land Boards have to inquire into the _bona fides_ of the applicants. The question of the remission or suspension of the payment of rent is one of great difficulty in countries in which the Crown is the largest landholder. If a discretionary power is given to the Ministry, political pressure can be brought to bear upon them by tenants through their Parliamentary representatives; if it be withheld, great hardship may ensue. This is particularly the case in Australia, where the value of a property may greatly be reduced by the devastations of rabbits or other pests and the consequent deterioration in the grazing capability of the land, or by a fall in the price which can be obtained for stock or wool. The Land Acts of New South Wales recognise either of the above causes as sufficient to entitle a pastoral lessee to a reappraisement of his rent by a Land Board, and permit the suspension of annual payments for one year in the case of holders of land under conditional purchase who reside upon it, but compel the vast majority of tenants of the Crown to abide strictly by the conditions of their agreements, under pain of the forfeiture of their holdings. Cases of individual {39} hardship, which would engage the attentions of a private landlord, are, in the avoidance of a greater evil, left without redress.