Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:59:47.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of British Land Policy at the Cape, 1812–281

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

L. C. Duly
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the first years of British rule at the Cape, a complacency, reinforced by a disregard for colonial conditions and by a disdain for day-to-day supervision, relegated land administration to a marginal function of the Cape Town and London governments. The first major change in the land code was made in 1812 by Governor Cradock, who wanted to obtain the loyalty of the Boer in order to ensure continued British overlordship of the colony, but from 1813 to 1828 and beyond, Government failed to develop an effective administrative system for processing the applications for land grants under the Cradock code. No check was made on the incompetent officials in Cape Town who were entrusted with transforming the decrees of government into a workable land alienation system. On occasion, London, which had but a fleeting interest in land policy in the period under review, imposed new restrictions on the administrative process in order to obtain some other goal. The persistent lack of constructive activity by the British suggests that they did much to prevent the Boer from identifying himself with the Cape Town government.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , November 1965 , pp. 357 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The author wishes to thank the Sub-Sahara African Area Committee of the Ford Commonwealth Studies-International Relations Fund of Duke University for its generous support. Also, he expresses his gratitude to Professor H. M. Robertson, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar

2 Harlow, V. T., confusing intention with result, has declared that Cradock's regulations provided ‘an ordered system which yielded a reasonable revenue and prevented the worst excesses of land grabbing’. Cambridge History of the British Empire, VIII (8 vols.; Cambridge: University Press, 1929–1940), 209.Google ScholarWalker, Eric A. has suggested that Boers who wanted land under the Cradock system could get it, although he does point out that some difficulty or delay might exist for the applicants. The Great Trek (London: A.&C. Black Ltd., 1934), pp. 83–4,Google Scholar and A History of Southern Africa (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957), p. 180.Google Scholar

3 An exception is Robertson, H. M.. See his article, ‘The Cape of Good Hope and “Systematic Colonization”’, South African Journal of Economics, v (12 1937), 367–411,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his review of The Cape Coloured People, 1652–1937, by DrMarais, J. S., S.A.J.E., VII, (12 1939), 456–9.Google Scholar

4 The most obvious parallel to the Cape experience is New South Wales, which used licenses to legalize squatting. For £10 per year, any reputable person was permitted to graze stock over as much land as he pleased outside the settled district.Google Scholar See Roberts, S. H., The Squatting Age in Australia, 1835–1847 (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1935).Google Scholar

5 By 1800, only 29,612 morgen had been surveyed in the entire colony, and even these surveys were unreliable since the colony had no standard of land measure. Each surveyor employed his own system.Google ScholarCape of Good Hope, Report of the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of Determining the Unit of Land Measure (Cape Town: Government Printer, 1859), Appendix A.Google Scholar

6 Caledon to Castlereagh, dispatch 73, 16 Oct. 1809, C.O. 48/4 (Public Record Office); Melvill to Bird, 23 July 1812, C.O. 53 (Cape Archives);Google Scholar and Cape of Hope, G. Good30–'76, Report of the Surveyor-General on Tenure of the Land, Land Laws, and their Results (Cape Town: Government Printer, 1876), p. 5.Google Scholar

7 van Ryneveld, W. S., ‘A Plan for Amending the Interior Police in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope’, 31 10 1801, Theal, George McCall (ed.), Records of the Cape Colony, IV (36 vols.; Cape Town: Government Printer, 1897–1905), 93–4.Google Scholar

8 Caledon to Castlereagh, dispatch 73, 16 Oct. 1809, C.O. 48/4 (P.R.O.), and van Ryneveld to Bird, 24 Jan. 1812, enclosure in Cradock to Liverpool, dispatch 15, 4 Mar. 1812, C.O. 48/13 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

9 Caledon to Castlereagh, dispatch 73, 16 Oct. 1809.Google Scholar

10 The Governor's attitude was not made public, and applications for land continued to be made. By the end of 1811, over 400 requests for loan places were on file. Report of the Surveyor-General on Tenure of the Land, p. 8.Google Scholar

11 Caledon to Castlereagh, dispatch 73, 16 Oct. 5809.Google Scholar

12 Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade to Peel, 22 Mar. 1811, C.O. 48/11 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

13 Cradock brought the Council's report to the colony in Oct. 1812, and by early Dec. he had formulated an outline of his new land programme. He then consulted others in the Government for their suggestions, but before he received their comments, he used his new system as early as Jan. 1812. Report of the Surveyor-General on Tenure of the Land, p. 21.Google Scholar

14 Cradock to Liverpool, dispatch 15, 4 Mar. 1812, C.O. 48/33 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

15 Cradock to Alexander, 6 Dec. 1811, enclosure in Cradock to Liverpool, dispatch 35, 4 Mar. 1512.Google Scholar

16 Ibid.

17 Enclosures in Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Alexander to Lt.-Col. Graham, 23 May 1812, enclosure in Cradock Liverpool, dispatch 24, 10 June 1812, C.O. 48/14 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

20 The Privy Council approved the Governor's land programme in September 1812, but they reminded him that the colony might be returned to the Dutch. Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade to Goulburn, 30 Sept. 1812, CO. 48/16 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

21 Cape Town Government Gazette, 16 Oct. 1812.Google Scholar

22 Ibid. 17 July and 6 Aug. 1813.

23 Ibid. 17 July and 30 Sept. 1814.

24 Cradock to Liverpool, dispatch 15, 4 Mar. 1812.Google Scholar

25 ‘Statement by Charles D'Escury’, 26 Sept. 1827, Theal, Records, XXXIII, 461.Google Scholar

26 D'Escury to Bathurst, 29 Apr. 1826, Theal, Records, XXVI, 314.Google Scholar

27 D'Escury to Somerset, 4 Sept. 1818, C.O. 89 (Cape).Google Scholar

28 Cape Town Government Gazette, 21 Nov. 1801.Google Scholar

29 D'Escury to Bird, 22 Nov. 1814, C.O. 64 (Cape).Google Scholar

30 D'Escury to Commissioners of Inquiry, 26 Aug. 1824,Google ScholarTheal, Records, xviii, 250–1.Google Scholar

31 D'Escury to Somerset, 4 Sept. 1818, C.O. 89 (Cape).Google Scholar

32 Michell to Bell, 27 Nov. 5829, C.O. 370 (Cape), and 8 Dec. 1830, C.O. 374 (Cape), and Land Office to Secretary to Government, 25 Aug. 1831, C.O. 391 (Cape).Google Scholar

33 E.g. the rent on a converted loan place in the district of Uitenhage was set at 98 rixdollars by the local commission, but D'Escury wanted 200. The Governor fixed the rent at 100 rixdollars. D'Escury to Bird, 17 Nov. 1818, C.O. 97 (Cape).Google Scholar

34 D'Escury to Somerset, 4 Sept. 1818, C.O. 89 (Cape).Google Scholar

35 Cape Town Government Gazette, 26 Feb. 1836.Google Scholar

36 In 1826, D'Escury applied to Bathurst for the position of Auditor in the colony. (D'Escury to Bathurst, 29 Apr. 1826, Theal, Records, XXVI, 314.) At the same time, the Inspector was under investigation by the Commissioners of Inquiry at the request of Bathurst. Memorandum by Hay, 15 Feb. 1828, C.O. 48/89 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

37 D'Escury to Bird, 22 May 1814, C.O. 64 (Cape).Google Scholar

38 Cape Town Government Gazette, 3 June 1814.Google Scholar

39 ‘Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry to Earl Bathurst upon the Administration of the Government’, Theal, Records, XXVII, 383–4, and ‘Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry to Earl Bathurst upon the Finances’,Google ScholarTheal, Records, xxvii, 406, 454–16.Google Scholar

40 ‘Report of the Surveyor-General on Tenure of the Land, p. 9.Google Scholar

41 E.g. D'Escury to Plasket, 15 Aug. 1825, C.O. 197 (Cape), and de Smidt to Bell, 2 May and 13 Aug. 1838, C.O. 467 (Cape).Google Scholar

42 Marginal comments, D'Escury to Plasket, so May 1824, CO. 197 (Cape).Google Scholar

43 D'Escuryto Somerset, 4 Sept. 1818, C.O. 89 (Cape), and Memorandum by D'Escury, 20 Dec. 1822, Theal, Records, XV, 172.Google Scholar

44 In 1824 when William Hayward was sent as the Governor's special commissioner to mitigate the complaints of the 1820 Albany settlers, he was empowered to adjust land disputes and to enlarge grants. D'Escury was not consulted. The Governor claimed that whenever he suspected ‘partiality or undue influence’ in an application, he consulted the Inspector. Somerset to Bathurst, dispatch 39, 23 Aug. 1815, C.O. 48/29 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

45 Somerset to Bathurst, 7 July 1825, Theal, Records, xxii, 180.Google Scholar

46 D'Escury to Somerset, Sept. 1818.Google Scholar

47 Details of the case are found in C.O. 48/89 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

48 Sir Richard Plasket declared: ‘It was scarcely possible for Him to sell a Horse to any Colonist who had not a Petition in the Public Office for Land.’ Plasket to Florton, 1 Nov. 1825, CO. 48/71 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

49 D'Escury to Plasket, 10 May 1824, C.O. 197 (Cape).Google Scholar

50 ‘Report to Bathurst from Commissioners of Inquiry’, 27 Dec. 1825, C.O. 48/75 (P.R.O.), and Somerset to Bathurst, dispatch 63, 24 Nov. 1823, C.O. 48/60 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

51 Plasket to Horton, 28 Sept. 1825, C.O. 48/71 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

52 For London's position and D'Escury's alliance with the former Acting-Governor, Sir Rufane Donkin, and Bishop Burnett, see ‘Memorandum on D'Escury Case’, 15 Feb. 1828, C.O. 48/89 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

53 Theal, Records, xxxiii, 470n.Google Scholar

54 ‘Sketch on Land Tenure in Colony, of the Progressive State of the Measure for Converting and Improving the Land Tenure in this Colony, corrected to 6 September 1821’, CO. 154 (Cape).Google Scholar

55 ‘Comparative Results of the State of the Land Tenure closed in 1821 and that closed on the 31 December 1822’, C.O. 197 (Cape).Sketch on Progressive State of the Measure for Converting and Improving the Land Tenures in the Colony, 31 Dec. 1824, C.O. 197 (Cape).Google Scholar

56 ‘Sketch on Progressive State if the Measure for Converting and Improving the Land Tenures in the Colony’, 31 Dec. 1824, C.O. 197 (Cape).Google Scholar

57 The figure for plots over 250 morgen may include the converted loan farms. ‘General Report of the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners’, 1 Apr. 1844, Great Britain, Sessional Papers, xxxi (1844) (178), Appendix 15, p. 44.Google Scholar

58 ‘Documents and Notes forming a Brief Statement of the Land Tenure at the Cape of Good Hope from its Origin to the Close of 1823’, I.L.W. 25B (Cape), and ‘Sketch on Progressive State of the Measure for Converting and Improving the Land Tenures in the Colony’.Google Scholar

59 Manuscript copy, Cape of Good Hope Blue Book for 1828, C.O. 5970 (Cape).Google Scholar

60 Cradock to Bathurst, dispatch 62, 23 Aug. 1813, C.O. 48/17 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

61 Bird to Commissioners of Inquiry, 9 Jan. 1824, Theal, Records, xvi, 505–6.Google Scholar

62 Bird to Bigge, 6 May 1824, Ibid. xvii, 297.

63 Land Board to Bell, 9 July 1829, C.O. 370 (Cape).Google Scholar

64 Michell to Bell, 8 Dec. 1830, C.O. 374 (Cape).Google Scholar

65 Michell to Bell, zo Nov. 5832, CO. 403 (Cape).Google Scholar

66 Bourke to Huskisson, 19 May 1828, C.O. 48/124 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

67 Marginal note, Somerset to Bathurst, dispatch 39,23 Aug. 1815, C.O. 48/29 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

68 Goulburn to Hay, 26 Aug. 1825, C.O. 48/73 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

69 Society to Bathurst, 17 Dec. 1819, C.O. 48/50 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

70 Hayward to Somerset, 3 Aug. 1824, C.O. 204 (Cape).Google Scholar

71 Cole to Goderich, dispatch 70, 5 Dec. 1831, C.O. 48/143 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

72 Bathurst to Donkin, 20 May 1820, C.O. 48/49 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

73 Bigge and Colebrooke to Somerset, zo Aug. 1825, Rhodes House MSS. Afr. t. 7, vol. 13.Google Scholar

74 Somerset to Bathurst, dispatch 230, 1 Oct. 1825, C.O. 48/70 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

75 Bathurst to Somerset, dispatch 233, 9 Jan. 1826, C.O. 49/19 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

76 D'Escury to Plasket, 4 July 1826, enclosed in Bourke to Bathurst, dispatch 42, 13 July 1826, C.O. 48/82 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

77 Bourke to Bathurst, dispatch 42, 13 July 1826.Google Scholar

78 Ibid.

79 Bathurst to Bourke, 30 Oct. 1826, C.O. 49/19 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

80 In 1832 the Surveyor-General pleaded with Government to finance a survey of the frontier and to fix the 30-mile line. Michell to Bell, 6 Dec. 1832, enclosure in Cole to Goderich, dispatch 32, 20 Dec. 1832, C.O. 48/146 (P.R.O.).Google Scholar

81 Governor Benjamin D'Urban ordered the issuing of the deeds in February 1835. Hertzog to Bell, 26 Feb. 1835, C.O. 435 (Cape).Google Scholar

82 ‘Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry upon Finances’, pp. 4056 and 413–28, and ‘Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry upon Administration’, pp. 383–4.Google Scholar

83 ‘Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry upon Finances’, pp. 416–18.Google Scholar

84 Land Board to Bell, 21 Apr. 1829, C.O. 370 (Cape).Google Scholar

85 E.g. see Land Board to Bell, 11 Aug. 1829, C.O. 370 (Cape) and Memorandum for the Board of Commissioners for Lands, 11 Aug. 1829, L.B. 98 (Cape).Google Scholar

86 Michell to Montagu, 1 Nov. 1843, C.O. 555 (Cape).Google Scholar