> ŁLand Policy In Southern Africa During theNineteenth Century0 *ŁA. J. ChristopherDepartment of Oeograpliy, University of Port Elizabeth.ŁŁ »The formulation and implementation of landpolicy in the nineteenth century were vital parts ofthe colonization movement which affected largeareas of the world; but there has been only anoccasional historical interest in the agriculturalattractions of the lands receiving the migrants.The importance of land policies in the receivingcountries was well recognized at the time of settle-ment, however, and this aspect of colonization hasbeen the focus of increasing attention in recentyears.In the last sixty years of the nineteenth centurythere was a considerable demand for settlers inthe various 'New Lands' of the world. To a largeextent the governments of the countries and colon-ies involved competed with one another for suit-able colonists. Assisted passages were offered, andrural land policies were formulated which, it washoped, would attract settlers. Agencies in themajor European centres were established to publi-cise the attractions of the colony or state con-cerned, and a flood of propaganda was issued.The Victorian era witnessed a great drive toextend European settlement and make use of landwhich was lying idle. Settlement promotion wasundertaken in the utmost optimism that a betterway of life lay ahead for the colonist and thatthe opening up of 'New Worlds' would make theexisting one a better place to live in.There was no fixed agreement upon how thisshould be effected. If land was the key to coloniz-ation, there remained the question of how shouldit be distributed in the best interests of the state.Two basic approaches to this problem could beseen in Victorian times. The first regarded landas being of intrinsic value and therefore a pricecould be placed upon any parcel of land; land, infact, was a reserve of revenue which could be call-ed upon by the state to meet other expenditure,often that of financing immigration. The secondregarded land as only of value once improvementhad been effected, and therefore land could begiven to the settler on the understanding that heimproved it and therefore increased the totalcapital value of the rural areas of the country inquestion. The two approaches had their ownorigins in earlier times but were elaborated andrefined to suit changing circumstances and pro-vide for the occupation of new lands on anunprecedented scale.The countries involved in attracting settlerswere primarily the United States of America, theBritish colonies in Australia, North America and,to a lesser extent, South Africa. The SouthAmerican states were also engaged in attractingsettlers but tended to obtain them from differentgeographical areas from those supplying theEnglish-speaking world.1 The United States ofAmerica, in particular, provided a mode! for landregulations which, because of the success of thesettlement of North America, was frequentlycopied.2 The fact that there was comDetition forsettlers meant that there was a keen interest in thedevelopment of other states and that frequentadjustments to land regulation were made. It isnoticeable that as time passed, land regulationsbecame more generous for the prospective settler.In southern Africa there were two influencesupon land policy, the British Imperial system andthe Cape Dutch system. The two had varyingeffects upon settlement, and were applied to dif-ferent areas for very different periods of time.The British Imperial system affected Natal formost of the second half of the nineteenth century,and the Cape of Good Hope only for a shortperiod. In the remainder of southern Africa theCape Dutch system, sometimes modified by ideasfrom the United States, was dominant. It is pro-posed to examine the two systems and show theirrelevance to the settlement of southern Africa andto determine why southern Africa was unsuccess-ful as a reception area for agricultural colonists.BRITISH IMPERIAL SYSTEMThe British Imperial system of land settlementowed much to the operation of the Congressionalsystem of land division and sale; and an examin-ation of this system is essential to an understand-ing of the British system. The United States ofAmerica formulated its Jand policy in the periodimmediately after the American War of Independ-ence.3 In 1785 Congress adopted a Land Ordinancewhich was to apply to the federal public domain.The Ordinance provided for the survey of the landand its disposal by public auction at a minimumprice of U.S.S1 per acre ($2,50 per ha). Thesystem was improved by the passage of the LandAct of 1796, which became the model for muchlegislation in other parts of the world.The United States government envisaged a closesettlement of the public domain by an agriculturalcommunity, on lots of 80-160 acres in extent. Thelots were systematically arranged into sectionsand townships. The system of regular survey andauction was extended westwards from Ohio as thelands were opened up. Undoubtedly, the schemeattracted many settlers who were able to buyland at reasonable prices at the auctions. Thegovernment looked upon the disposal of thepublic domain, at first, as a means of raisingrevenue, and the minimum price was variedaccording to the economic conditions in thecountry until 1819 when it was fixed at $1,25 anacre (S3,12 per ha). However, attitudes changedas the volume of immigrants increased in the1830s. The extensive tracts of land in the westernUnited States were seen as a place whereimmigrants could be settled, making the countryinternally strong. Thus in 1841 Congress allowedthe sale of alternate sections within each townshipat a fixed price of $1,25 an acre, as a means ofattracting further immigration.The United States government ignored a num-ber of problems in framing land laws, and conse-quently they appear extremely simple comparedwith some of those framed elsewhere. The firstproblem arose from the lack of provision of landfor pastoral farming. All land was supposed to befarmed for growing crops. The extensive runs ofthe pastoralist had no place in American policy.*Consequently one of the major problems ofsouthern Africa was ignored. The second problemwas the refusal, at first, to recognize that differentenvironments required different regulations. Thewestward extension of settlement in the UnitedStates involved the farming of increasingly aridlands, but the problems were only encounteredin the 1870s and 1880s.5The United States government thus provided anattractive land policy against which the Britishgovernment had to compete, if it was to settle itsown colonies. British land policy as formulated in1832 copied many of the features of the Americansystem, but it needed to be more favourable. Theloss of emigrants to the United States was aserious problem as throughout the nineteenthcentury over 60 per cent of all emigrants fromthe United Kingdom went to the United States.The reforms in British policy effected in 1832were to have a profound influence upon southernAfrica. The Colonial Reformers attempted tomould the American system to British needs andintroduce a system common to the entire British :Empire but it seems doubtful whether prospectiveconditions outside Australia were seriously con-sidered in the formulation of the new policy. Thebasic thinking behind the change in policy was thedesire to establish across the globe a series ofcolonies socially simfflar to England. The bestfeatures of the English rural community were tobe transplanted to new environments and the evilsassociated with industrialisation were to be leftbehind. In so doing, it was hoped that there wouldbe an increase in health and prosperity, not onlyfor the new communities, but also for England,where contemporaries were faced with whatappeared to be over-population.6The whole policy of emigration was seen to bebound up with the price of land in the colonies.* Ł*'t The Colonial Reformers believed that to developa successful colony of settlement, there must be aŁ balance between the supply of land, labour andcapital. The lack of one or the superabundanceŁ of another led to disaster. There had been manyprecedents for believing this. The failure of thescheme at the Cape of Good Hope in 1820 andA that of the Swan River Colony (WesternAustralia) in 1829 pointed to the good manage-Ł ment of land policy as being the key to the prob-lem of establishing soundly based colonies.7 Land,Ł it was thought, had to be used to attract settlers.The basic thinking behind the scheme propoundedby the Reformers was that land should be sold^ in the colonies at a fixed 'sufficient' price, insteadof grants at low rentals which had been theŁ normal colonial practice in the past. The settle-ment's prospects were determined by the price ofŁ land. The price had two functions. First, it hadto be low enough to allow settlers to buy landthat they could afford, but it had to be highenough to prevent persons buying very extensivetracts and thereby spreading the settlement un-, duly. Secondly, the price of land determined thestate of the labour supply. A high price preventedŁ labourers from buying land and thus a largelabour force would be available; but the price hadto be sufficiently low to give labourers a reason-able chance of becoming proprietors withoutcompletely depleting the labour force. Also prop-, rietors should have some capital to invest in land,buildings, machinery, and animals. It was hopedŁ to achieve a balance in this way and so avoidcolonial paralysis.The new policies of 1832 were, to a large extent,ta departure from the previous approach tocolonial land settlement whereby colonies hadt granted land for a moderate rental to anyone whowould occupy it, with some hope of either cultivat-Ł ing the land or pasturing animals. The oldapproach was felt to be wasteful and it wasabolished. The fixed price or minimum upset price^at auctions was introduced throughout the BritishEmpire. Nowhere was its introduction more, troubled than in southern Africa.CAPE DUTCH SYSTEMThe Cape Dutch system of land grants haddeveloped in southern Africa during the period4 1652-1806 when the Cape of Good Hope had beenŁ under the control of the Dutch East India. Company. It had not been the intention of theCompany to establish a colony of settlement whenit took possession of the Cape, but one had gradually evolved. The first land grants were made in1654 to Com.pa.ny servants to grow vegetablesnear Cape Town. The settlement's main functionwas seen as a supply base to provide passing shipswith fresh fruit, vegetables and meat. The landgrants were, therefore, small at first while theCompany adhered to this plan, but increasedrapidly as the settlers moved into areas remotefrom Cape Town. Cattle farms in particularneeded extensive areas. A group of colonists laterarrived from Europe and established a colony forsettlement, which provided the Company with itsexports.The settlers evolved their own system ofappropriating farms, which was recognized by theCompany in 1732. There were either few or, attimes, no surveyors in the Cape during the periodof Dutch rule. A farm, however, had to bedemarcated in areas where there were fewrecognizable boundaries. It became an establishedcustom that a man could possess all the landwithin half an hour's ride, at walking-pace, fromhis house or the centre of his farm. Thus farmscould be spaced at an hour's ride from oneanother. The area involved was 3 000 morgen(2 500 ha) per farm. Tenure was not secure,being on a fifteen year lease; but land was plentifuland new farms could be carved out of the wilder-ness. In time the term 'farm' and 3 000 morgenof land became synonymous.The method of survey was approximate, andthe walking pace of horses varied appreciably,but the Cape government was unconcerned withthe errors. Even after the British occupation(followed nine years later by formal annexation)and the introduction of regular surveys in 1813,farms of 3 000 morgen were allowed on securetenure at low quitrents. The general instability ofthe farming community may be seen in the out-ward extension of settlement throughout theDutch period. Each member of the family wasentitled to a farm and a farm was regarded as thebirthright of every man. The boundaries of theColony were regularly expanded and many farmersoccupied land, at least temporarily, beyond thecolonial borders. The return to the colonialgovernment was slight and whereas the Dutchadministration had been largely content to forgetabout the pioneers, the British government wasnot.8BRITISH POLICY AT THE CAPEIn 1832 the system of quitrent grants in theCape of Good Hope was replaced by the newImperial policy of land sales, although quitrentgrants appear, in fact, to have continued untii1839 when they were stopped at the expressdemand of the Secretary of State.9 The ImperialGovernment now attempted to impose its ownideas at the Cape. 'The obvious result was stagna-tion. The Governor estimated in 1840 that thereremained some 34 000 000 acres (14 000 000 ha)of Crown Land, most of which was too rocky,mountainous, sterile or inaccessible for use. How-ever, the Government was obliged to introduce auniform price of 5s. per acre (12s. 6d. per ha) forland at the Cape in 1841. This price was unaccept-able and few purchasers were forthcoming. In1843 the price of land was reduced to a minimumof 2s. per acre (5s. per ha) at auctions. It must beremembered that this price was a tenth of thatasked in the Australian colonies and thereforesupposedly designed to recognize the specialcircumstances prevailing in southern Africa, Itwas obviously not a price which would attractexisting Cape citizens to purchase land after along period of quitrent grants for which nocapital outlay had been necessary. Good land wastoo plentiful at prices considerably lower than theGovernment minimum, to attract settlers, especial-ly as the Government admitted to having littledesirable land left. The Cape Government main-tained this system until 1860, thus losing manycolonists to other parts of South Africa.The Cape colony tended to stagnate under thenew land laws but other parts of South Africawere opened up in She 1840s, A sizable body ofCape farmers left the Cape Colony for a varietyof reasons in the 1830s and 1840s.10 Much hasbeen written about the reasons for the Great Trekand the motives of the Voortrekkers for penetrat-ing new lands but these need not be dwelt uponhere, beyond stating that the emigrants from theCape Colony were, for a wide variety of reasons,dissatisfied with the British administration. TheGreat Trek, led to an extension of settlement andfurthermore the Trekkers took their own ideason land policy with them, which were naturallyat variance with Imperial ideas.In 1838 the Trekker parliament, meeting inPietermaritzburg, laid down the principles uponwhich land was to be granted in areas under itscontrol which included the present provinces ofNatal, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State.11Farms of 3 000 morgen each were to be availableto all citizens and two farms were available forcertain classes of citizen, notably the early pion-eers who had taken part in the conquest of theland.12 Low rents were payable on land, and thereappeared to be sufficient land outside the CapeColony to provide for the foreseeable needs ofthe Trekkers.The land regulations entitling each citizen to afarm remained in force in the Republic of Trans-vaal and Orange Free State until the end of the^century but the methods of allocation changed.13The circular farms of the Cape were seen to bewasteful and therefore in the Transvaal squarefarms were recognized. The size was approximate-ly 4 000 morgen (3 200 ha); but horses weresometimes ridden at speeds greater than walking-pace and farms up to 6 000 morgen (5 000 ha) twere not uncommon. The lack of surveyorsthroughout the nineteenth century hampered theRepublics in the fair distribution of land, but theexistence of plentiful land until the 1880s did notmean that this was a serious problem.BRITISH POLICY IN NATALBritish Imperial policy in the Cape was unsuc-cessful owing to a lack of land for sale; in theTransvaal and Orange Free .State it was ignored.It was only in Natal that any direct clash in ideasoccurred. Furthermore, Natal did not gain com-plete internal self-government until 1893 andconsequently Imperial ideas on land policy con-tinued to influence the colony long after the CapeColony had gained internal self-government in1854, and returned to a policy akin to thai whichhad operated before 1832. The impact of Imperialpolicy may therefore be clearly seen in thedisasters which pursued the colonization of Natal.Natal had been occupied by the Voortrekkerswho in 1838 established the ephemeral Republicof Natalia. In 1843 this state was annexed toBritain and colonial rule was imposed. In the landsettlement which followed, the Trekkers were ableto retain their title to some three million acres(1 200 000 ha) out of a total of ten million acres(4 000 000 ha). These farms contained some ofthe best land in the colony but many of themhad been sold to speculators and so constituteda block of unused lands, which were a positivehindrance to development.Upon annexation the land policy of the Cape *Colony was introduced with the sale of land byauction at a minimum price of 2s. per acre ŁŁŁ -(5s. per ha). The minimum price was, however,raised to 4s. per acre (10s. per ha) in 1848 owing *«/"'to the supposed greater fertility of soil in Natal. . mThe Government thought that the Colony couldbe transformed into an agricultural settlement j.v producing tropical and sub-tropical crops. Glow-ing accounts of the agricultural potential of the> Colony persuaded many that this was indeed thebest area of South Africa. In this ease a minimum* pnce cf 4s. per acre could be regarded as low.iret<holni 'liOUs ( L I \ ..-Oil' ^ I C* n \ai i L Ł i1ton _ t tl, v l r ,' h, d .- J~, , f v , 'pl< H. V ,-ŁU "i 1(1 Mi '4 b m^ ',i m, t Ł ' i>Ł< ~0 >'u i ' ' , , lno' ' -, i J i' i. Ł, u h i i Ł '1 "Ł an M ! s_ >'<u Ti <to NH d i1 i ŁŁ'i' il i~> ii i n i>v\. di i i J, \ —!,. ir Ibarren areas of the Colony.1 'ri iJ Iu <i'»te < nThe Natal Government was understandablydisappointed in the failure of a close settlementf _ischeme, similar to the ones in operation, else-where in the Empire. The basic premises of the» Colonial Reformers were absent in Natal and itwas impossible to put into practice the theories' *Ł formulated in London. The other aspects ofdevelopment, such as roads and to an increasingextent railways, together with urban settlementsj, ^were absent in Natal. The environment wasagainst the project too, as a lack of reliable rain-J- fall and the dearth of suitable soils made mostsettlers give up.The concentrated settlement was dearly unsuc-.,. ^esslu! and the Government sought to find newways of attracting settlers. Land was its sole assetp- Łas a means of attraction. In 1856 the Governmentdeparted from its usual custom and allowed grantsŁ * of varying size according to the number of armedmen the farmer could supply in time of emerg-*" ** ency. Thus a farmer supplying five armed menx jpould obtain 5 000 acres (2 000 ha) at a nominalrent, in any unoccupied part of the country. Such> \.a scheme might appear generous at first sight, butthe mustering of several armed Europeans was* difficult and other terms imposed made the schemeunpopular. The Government had hoped to attractveterans of the Crimean War but again thisproved to be unsuccessful and had to beabandoned."''"'" -'n {ve-j |i-.-. Ccyc-^vnt orce again>. i f > i i am i i i 1 u" n in ieturn for' ii *f i\ i i, iJH i v k p o cd to bepip i iinlv \ , H-to i Grants ofi v a o t d n (In 1 f itnt parts of theK, i (In > i i il n e 1 the farmiii \ i i Jf i ve ic Imperial< e i u ' i I i 1 UvO tiall super-Ł L s , i1 » i -i! 11 lered the' \ i i ints, andi * i i ii "'i ( us ' / auction atn 'i i (it -v a ie f he ImperialI t nij >- u i nlL ^ ,. and NatalI 1 1 it i ] al 1 iit* ii i ; i i 1 i i ic\ >ased firsten t n ^ii '8-1^ io 1 M and theni i t i r JI i m1 lings on low' ( > i h ii i'l)|t-c ses. Bothi^l Li > ii i = >' i i' number' *" i K f'n 1 jn> onlv possessedf i il i lLi^, 1500 000< ( 1 \i' i i ; 1 t 1 i "T/Miti d in thei < i ' i iii i1 ' lain of tenureib c 'o u i > k i? ,o'd ivs was ani v. ii t d L i i vi fJ policy,iti M ] [ |ihn ' i lit ,ual'y lost their' i i C ' i lino, ii critnt vas madei ai ..iJ til 1 ^ iiiiidur' century.15ii i i1 i i! .(.! i i ^1 e kijl "-uccessful1 si o ny w i J ii * n !i^ ^ i 'd in theiii1" i JI 1 II icnTi ot economicd ( 11 u i J nuinj o n vu nts intro-duced was even less advantageous than, that ofWestern Australia.UlEND OF IMPERIAL POLICYBy 1860 the British Imperial land policy insouthern. Africa was seen to be unsuccessful. TheCape Colony abandoned it in 1860 while theOrange Free State and Transvaal had neveroperated it. Only in Natal after 1860 was it stillpursued. By the 1860s indeed it is impossible totalk in terms of an Imperial policy any longerbecause most colonies in Australasia and NorthAmerica began to administer their own policiesafter they had been granted responsible govern-ment. A general liberalization of land policythroughout the world is clearly discernible; andthe year 1861 saw what was probably the bestknown law regarding land settlement ever passed,the American Homestead Act.This Act introduced the concept of free landto a country which had hitherto only been en-gaged in selling land. Under the Act any personwho was a United States citizen or who hadtaken out his first papers for naturalization wasentitled to claim 160 acres (65 ha) at a nominalfee. The 160 acres could always be extended bypurchase so that persons possessing some capitalcould also be attracted. Free land or at least theidea that it was possible to acquire land free, wasa major factor in the promotion of large scaleemigration from the overcrowded countries ofEurope to the United States.In the Cape Colony the Crown Lands Act of1860 provided for a return to rents on land whichdid not limit the area that might be rented. Thenew grants differed from those issued prior to1832, however, in that the land was sold at apublic auction and taxed thereafter by means ofa perpetual rent. This had the advantage of pro-viding the Government with an immediate incomefrom sales and a continuing income from rent.Prices and rents were low as both were calculatedon the apparent value of the land for pastoralfarming. The areas involved were large contain-ing as much as 60 000 acres (24 000 ha) per farm.Many exceeded 10 000 acres (4 000 ha) in thedrier interior of the Colony. The system washighly flexible, in contrast to both the Imperialand Cape Dutch systems. The Surveyor General'soffice was able to adjust rents, minimum pricesand the extent of the farm according to thecapabilities of the land. The result was one of themost flexible systems in operation and hence onlypossible where the volume of work for theSurveyor General's Office was small. The Agri-cultural Lands Act of 1870 provided that landcould be purchased for 10s. per acre (25s. per ha)with freehold tenure but such lands were to belimited in extent to a 500 acre (200 ha) maximum.Legislation provided for an increasing range oftypes of lease both perpetual and with a fixedtime limit, and for sales. Special grants for milit-ary purposes and for agricultural settlers wereintroduced and elaborate and generous creditfacilities were offered to assist with the purchaseof land. Finally under the Crown Lands Act of1891 land could be disposed of in any manner,with the consent of the Cape Parliament.The relaxation of the regulations undoubtedlyassisted the settling of the interior of the Colony,whose boundaries had been pushed far inlandsince the 1840s. Large farms suitable for sheep.grazing became available and were rapidlyoccupied. However, despite its appearances the «relaxation was not aimed at close European settle-ment but rather the opposite. It was men with"1capital who were required, not farm labourers, _,or the poorer industrial workers of Europe.Although the policy was successful from an*economic point of view, settlement, as envisagedin the United States, was not the aim of the Cape Alegislators. Special schemes in the most desirableareas of the Colony were based on the idea of*close settlement but it was recognized that exten- Msive pastoralism was the best economic activityfor the Cape and consequently there was no inter-*ference with the owners of pastoral holdings. Evenmore significant was the lack of any drive to gain 4European labourers, and this was to have a signifi-cant bearing on the racial composition of the*Colony. ^ ^The basis of this policy in the Cape was theassumption that there was an inexhaustible supplyof land upon which farms could be laid out; andthe traditional approach to land acquisition in theOrange Free State and Transvaal had been basedon the same assumption. In the Cape the assump-*1tion was valid, or nearly so, until the end of thecentury; in the Orange Free State and Transvaalit was not. Pressure on available land built up ywithin these states, as sons found there was noland available to claim and that division of exist*ing holdings was not a practical economicproposition. *At several stages in South Africa's history^during the nineteenth century, military conquestsestablished new zones of settlement to reliev- Apressure on the older established areas. Usuallythese were the result of activities in the Transvaal, *Łbut occasionally in the Cape. The conquests wereestablished often as separate entities either colonial"1'or republican, with land policies similar to thoseof the Transvaal. Farms of regulation size were''granted to persons Who had taken part in tl^e —-conquest of the new lands. The period from 1882to 1893 was particularly active, although earliesmovements such as the 'Thirstland Trek' of 1874had led to the establishment of new settlements in'Angola and South West Africa.17The first major advance involved the establish-*"ment of the Republics of Goshen and Stellaland ^in Bechuanaland in 1882. This was followed bythe creation of the New Republic of Zululand m i1884, and the Klein Vrystaat in Swaziland in 1886as a miniature republic. In each case, use waski. made of tribal warfare among the African popu-lation to introduce a small army of Europeans,Ł who having defeated one of the contenders in thetribal war exacted their price, in land, from the*" victor. In Stellaland and Goshen farms of 3 000jnorgen (2 500 ha) were granted, but in Zulu-land only 4 000 acres (1 600 ha) could be allowedA owing to the restricted nature of the area gained.In 1890 the British South Africa Company^ occupied Mashonaland, north of the Limpopo.The Pioneers were allowed grants of only 1 500* morgen (1 200 ha) apiece,18 but this was not aserious drawback, as many of the Pioneers wereattracted not by land but by the fifteen miningt claims they were allotted and the hope of a secondRand. Agricultural pioneers such as those whoŁ trekked to Gazaland in eastern Rhodesia, however,were allowed full 3 000 morgen farms.19 Similarly* when Matabeleland was conquered in 1893 theCompany allowed grants of 3 000 morgen to^pioneers. It is interesting to note that the Portu-^ guese Mopambique Company offered similar termsin the area they controlled adjacent to the Rhod-> esian border.20In this manner pressure was relieved upon the> existing settled parts of South Africa. As eachnew area opened up, it was a pioneering districtat the time of colonization, and the generous land^policy was held to be necessary. The old CapeDutch system of land grants which evolved in thek seventeenth century, was the dominant influenceon land policy within each of the new areas*Ł settled in the nineteenth century. Only in Natalwas a policy of land sales adhered to, although* increasingly generous credit terms were providedfrom 1869 onwards, which amounted in theirgenerosity after 1889 to little more than a rentJOT twenty years, at the termination of which theland was the freehold property of the farmer.CONCLUSIONLand policy in southern Africa thus exhibitedJ several trends and traditions in the Victorian era.The traditional Cape Dutch system of a minimum*of government intervention left its legacy to theVictorian administration and governors who sawtheir duty as ruling southern Africa. Government,. regulation had always been abhorrent to the CapeDutch. The Republics of Orange Free State andŁ* Transvaal interfered as little as possible with theland rights of their subjects, but the Imperial" ""Government required order in the colonies andthis involved the termination of what was regard-ed as a needless squandering of southern Africa'sA only natural resource, land. Before the discoveryof diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1886, land wasall that South Africa had to offer the prospectivecolonist.The clash between the local ideas of the SouthAfricans, and the wider appreciation of Imperialneeds was inevitable and regrettable. The Imperialpolicy was well thought out but inapplicable toSouth Africa, and failure to recognize thisundoubtedly led to a revulsion against the ideaof settling in South Africa, on the part of pros-pective colonists. The British settlement of Natalas probably the most direct implementation ofImperial policy was a disaster from an agriculturalpoint of view. However, the Imperial Governmentwould not allow the situation to be corrected byintroducing the more liberalized Australian landlaws to the colony.21 The result was the partialstagnation of Natal for much of the remainderof the century.Basically the problem involved in the impositionof Imperial land policies was a misunderstandingof the nature of the physical environment. Thedegree of aridity and the lack of adequate surfacesupplies of water ensured that any agriculturalsettlement would be unsuccessful. The SouthAfricans realised this, but the Imperial Govern-ment was to some extent misled by the inform-ation with which it was supplied. Natal wasdescribed by the government in a report in 1848as possessing resources which were 'great, and inour opinion equal, if not superior, to any otherBritish colony, both as respects fertility of soiland abundance of water'.22 Other accounts wereequally extravagant, stating that the colony wassuitable for the production of almost every crop,including rice cultivation!23It seems doubtful that these accounts weredeliberately misleading as previous descriptions ofthe Eastern Province of the Cape Colony hadbeen.21 When detailed accounts outlining the sup-posed potential of Natal also presented suchextravagant pictures, it is hardly surprising thatthey were accepted as being correct by prospectivecolonists who wished to emigrate from Europe.The application of Imperial policy to a land, asNatal was represented to be, was again logical inthe light of Imperial experience. That it was to bedisastrous was not to be anticipated. The realerror came in trying to apply the concepts ofImperial policy to the Cape Colony where theadministration clearly thought, rightly so, that itwas impractical.The imposition of Imperial land policy uponthe Cape Colony was merely another source offriction between the British administration andthe Dutch-speaking colonists. It is highly doubt-ful whether the continuation of the Cape Dutchsystem would have prevented the Great Trek, butit would have removed one point of friction. Inthis respect it was the Cape which was the keyto Imperial land policy in South Africa. Theextreme impracticability of this policy and theeconomic stagnation which accompanied it, werein marked contrast to the land policies in coloniessuch as Victoria or New South Wales which werebelieved by contemporaries to be similar to theCape Colony. However, the presence of the CapeDutch colonists and the lack of any clear settle-ment policy meant that the conditions in SouthAfrica were different from those in Australia.Imperial policy was unsuccessful and all thetheories associated with it were shown to be in-applicable. Did the Cape Dutch system survivemuch better? The system with its reliance on freeempty land inevitably led to aggression in thesame way that the American colonists wereaggressive; but the isolation of the scattered farmsmeant that the frontier spirit, which was but aphase in the development of the United States,was a permanent way of life in South Africa. Asland was occupied so the South African pioneersmoved on. Contact between Dutch and English-speaking South Africans led some of the latterto do likewise. The constant movement and appro-priation of 6 000 or more acres per family ledsettlers to move to other countries. Treks tookplace to South West Africa, and even to Angolaand Northern Rhodesia (Zambia). Finally, how-ever, the supply of suitable land became exhausted.International boundaries were introduced intosouthern Africa and the scope for movement cameto an end, as did the traditional concept of the3 000 morgen farm. The intensification of settle-ment, based on the ideas of Imperial policy, heldlittle attraction for the South African, and couldonly be introduced when the condition for theimplementation of the Cape Dutch system brokeREFERENCES1. SCOBIE, J. R. 1964 Revolution on the Pampas: A Social History of Argentine Wheat. Austen, University of Texas-iPress, p. 29.2. ALLEN, H. C. 1959 Bush and Backwoods. Lancing, Michigan State University Press, pp. 48-62. _3. PATTISON, W. D. 1957 Beginnings of the American Rectangular Land Survey System, 1784-1800. Chicago, Uni-versity of Chicago Press, pp. 220-31. v4. HOLLON, W. D. 1966 The Great American Desert. New York, Oxford University Press, p. 133.5. BIULINGTON, R. A. 1960 Westward Expansion. A History of the American Frontier. New York, Macmillan,pp. 690-704. A6. KITSON CLARK, G. 1962 The Making of Victorian England. London, Methucn, pp. 65-82.7. BURROUGHS, P. 1967 Britain and Australia 1831-1855. A Study in Imperial Relations and Crown Lands Ad-1ministration. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 76-7.8. DULY, L. C. 1968 British Land Policy at the Cape, 1795-1844. Durham, Duke University Press, pp. 44-51.down at the end of the century. Even then the —closer settlement movement achieved only partialsuccess in Natal and was largely ignored elsewhere <in southern Africa.25The usual conflict between the pastoral holdersand agriculturalists which plagued many of thenew settlements of the nineteenth century, waslargely absent in southern Africa. The Cape Ł»Dutch system of grants ensured security of tenurein perpetuity for the holders of pastoral lands. :The Governments in all the countries concernednever attacked this security and consequentlyagricultural expansion came late, through the, adevelopment of agriculture on large holdings. Thecontrast between southern Africa and the United *States and Australia could not have been greater,as in the latter countries the agriculturalist was 4politically dominant by the last quarter of thecentury.Land policy was the basis of immigration* «schemes but even in 1904, when the Census wastaken. South Africa possessed only 1100 000-Europeans, many of whom lived in the towns.The Cape Dutch system was self-contained anddid not require immigrants to fill up the land.Natural increase was felt to be sufficient. TheImperial system was based on massive immigra-tion as was that of the United States. The totalEuropean population of southern Africa was*small compared with the expectation of the mid-nineteenth century partly as a result of the wide- 'spread implementation of the Cape Dutch landsystem.The confrontation between the two land systems Łwas part of a wider confrontation in South Africawhich was particularly violent in the second half*of the nineteenth century. The importance of landin this period cannot be overlooked, but, in the'final analysis, its significance lies in the differentvalues attached to it, by a pastoral pioneeringpeople and by officials who tried to administer <them.9. IBID., pp. 151-8.10. WALKER, E. A. 1948 The (ireai Trek, London, Longmans, pp. 59-105.11. BIRD, J, 1888 Annals of Natal. Pietermaritzburg, Davis, pp. 388-90, quoting H. Cloeie to Governor of Cape Colony,30.V.1844.12. IBID.13. BAUMANN, G. and BRIGHT, E. 1940 The Lost Republic. London, Faber and Faber, pp. 239-42.14. HATTERSLEY, A. F. 1950 The British Settlement of Natal. London, Cambridge University Press, pp. 94-120.> 15. ROBERTS, S. H. 1924 History of Australian Land Settlement (1788-1920). Melbourne, Macmillan, pp. 336-43.16. IBID., pp. 45-50.,. 17. DUFFY, J. 1959 Portuguese Africa. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, pp. 99-100.18. PALMER, R. II. 1968 Aspects of Rhodesian Land Policy, 1890-1936. Salisbury, Central Africa Historical Associ-ation, Local Series No. 22, p. 7.19. OLIVIER, S. P. 1943 Die Pioniertrekke iia Gazaland. Cape Town. Unit- Volkspers, pp. 11-13.20. IBID., pp. 6-7.21. HEATHCOTE, R. L. 1965 Back of Bottrke. Melbourne. Melbourne University Press, pp. 35-9.22. CHRISTOPHER, J. S. 1850 Natal, Cape of Good Hope. London, Effingham Wilson, p. 27.* 23. IBID., p. 42.24. HOCKLEY, 11. E. 1948 The Story of the British Settlers of 1820 in Africa. Cape Town, Juta, pp. 15-16.Ł 25. CHRISTOPHER, A. J. 1970 The Closer-Settlement Movement in Natal. 1875-1910. J. Geogr. (Stellenbosch). 3,569-78.