HD 984 A5 1862 Ai a; o; O! o! 1 j 1 ! 8 1 6; 3; 1 i CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS 3T THE COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OX PED'DIE GRANTEES. Ptrblisltexl Im order of lite cgistaiiuc Council. JULY, 18G2. CAPE TOWN : SOLOMON AND CO., STEAM PRINTING OFFICP: 1862. [ Hi ] REPOR T OF THE COMMITTEE appointed by the LEGISLATIVE COUN- CIL on the 8th July, 1862, " to take into consideration the PETITIONS of certain GRANTEES in VICTO- RIA, STOCKENSTROM, and PEDDIE, presented to the Council this Session, to ascertain if any, and what, Relief can be recommended by this Council for His Excellency's consideration, in MITIGATION of the GRIEVANCES complained of by the PETITIONERS, with power to take Evidence and call for Papers and Records." present : Mr. Tucker (Chairman), Mr. Barry, de Wet, Mr. Godlonton. Your Committee, having considered the evidence before them, have to report that, in their opinion, it would not be expedient to relax the conditions on which Grants of Land have been made, either in the Queen's Town, Kat River, or Victoria Districts, except where it may be shown to the satis- faction of Government that any Grant of Land is insufficient, either in quality or extent, or by absence of wood and water, to remunerate farming operations; and your Committee would suggest that, in such a case, the Government should authorize the proprietor to dispose of the same, either as a whole or in portions, to the adjoining proprietors, providing that the original condition be insisted on of furnishing one approved shot for every thousand acres or smaller extent of Land so transferred. Your Committee have had under their serious considera- tion the relative position and interests of the Grantee, the Mortgagee, and the Government, in cases where Mortgages may have been effected, and your Committee are of opinion that the Mortgagee might be protected without infringing C. 5 '62. PEDDIE GRANTEES. -A- os^ IV REPORT OF COMMITTEE. the rights of Government or weakening the defence of the Country. It appears to your Committee that, in the event of the for- feiture of a farm so granted, after a Mortgage had been raised on it, that such farm should be sold by Government subject to the original conditions, and that the net proceeds thereof should be paid over to the Mortgagee in satisfaction of his claim, if duly registered, providing that any excess of proceeds of sale over the Mortgage should accrue to Government. Your Committee give prominence to the fact that the greatest difficulty is experienced by proprietors subject to the condition of absolute forfeiture in raising money for the improvement of their farms, as capitalists do not readily make advances on such security, or, if they do, it is on terms dis- advantageous to the borrower. Your Committee feel assured that the recommendations bow made would, if judiciously carried out, tend to the deve- lopment of the resources of the districts in question and give greater contentment to a deserving and enterprising section of the community, without being detrimental to the defence of the Country ; a result, your Committee submit, of such importance as to warrant a departure, more apparent than real, from the original conditions of such Grants. HENRY TUCKER, Chairman. Committee Rooms, 19th July, 1862. r v -j PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEE. Thursday, \1th July, 1862. PRESENT: Mr. Barry, Mr. Godlonton, Mr. Pote, Mr. Tucker, Mr. de Wet. Resolved, that Mr. Pote take the chair. Order of Council, dated 8th July, for appointment of committee, read. The following petitions, referred to the committee, are submit- ted by the chairman. 1. From 49 grantees in the division of Victoria East, praying for an amendment of the conditions on which they hold their grants. 2. From 1 1 grantees of Stockenstrom ; prayer, similar. 3. From 110 grantees at Peddie; prayer, similar. Mr. M. R. Robinson examined. Sir Walter Currie examined. Committee adjourns to Saturday next, at two o'clock p.m. Saturday, ldth July, 1862. PRESENT: Mr. Tucker (Chairman), Mr. Barry, i Mr. de Wet. Mr. Godlonton, Mr. T. H. Bowker examined. Mr. C. Scanlen examined. The chairman is instructed to report to the Council. [ 1 J ^ I mm ii I m i i ii n .i.i g MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. PEDDIE GEANTEES COMMITTEE. Thursday, 11 th July, 1862. PRESENT : Mr. Pote (Chairman), Mr. Barry, Mr. de Wet, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Godlonton. Mr. M. R. Robinson, Deputy Colonial Engineer, examined. 1. Chairman^] Are you acquainted with the conditions Mr. on which the grantees at Queen's Town, Peddie, and Victoria M - R - Robin ' * hold their lands ? -Yes. m m? y ' 2. By whom were those conditions originally drawn ? By the Attorney-General. 3. Are they embodied in all the title deeds issued to the grantees ? I hold in my hand a copy of a title deed, from which I find that the conditions are not actually inserted but merely referred to. 4. Has it come under your knowledge whether these con- ditions have been ever carried out in every respect by the grantees ? I cannot say. As president of the commission, and as directing the whole of the survey, I frequently had to report to the civil commissioner that the conditions were not being fulfilled ; but that was in the early settlement. 5. But since the issue of the titles ? I can give no infor- mation with regard to that point. 6. The stringency of these conditions has been much complained of by the grantees : do you know of any way in which relief could be afforded to them so as yet not to endan- ger the general defence of the country ? -No ; I think not. I think it is a political question, in which my opinion would be of very little value. 7. One of the complaints is, that they cannot raise money on their titles in consequence of the servitude on which their C. 5 '62. PEDDIE GRANTEES 1. B 2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. farms are held ; could you suggest any way in which relief __ nson could be afforded in that respect without prejudicing the 17t i86 J 2 Ul7 ' defence f * ne country ? I have not thought of any. 8. Mr. Barry J] What is the market value of one of these farms ? I liave heard of farms in Queen's Town selling as high as 3,000 under these restrictions ; but the farms to which the Victoria petition particularly refers, I have heard have been sold for from 1,500 to 1,600 ; but then they are much smaller. 9. Originally, I believe, these farms were simply granted ? They were free grants, that is quitrent grants, subject only to the expenses of surveying and inspection. 10. Chairman.'] But although they were free grants, there were very great/ obligations imposed upon the people before they could realize the conditions ; I mean they were obliged to have a certain amount of money at command to build a house, and stock their farms. All these were necessary obli- gations to their obtaining a grant? The conditions required that they should build a small house upon the farm, and that they should also stock the farm ; but in the selection of men by the commission, they were further required to have each a certain amount of stock on coming into possession, other- wise they were not chosen ; and also, to the knowledge of the commission, a certain sum of money with which to build a house ; but many of those first constructed were mere pondoks. 11. Were not these houses in some measure considered defensible positions ? That idea was abandoned. The far- mers themselves represented it as a hardship upon them ; and although it was originally intended by the conditions that the houses should be defensible both in structure and position, Sir George Cathcart, on an appeal being made to him, passed that over. 12. But still, any man not having property of any kind would not have obtained a grant of land ? Not if that was in evidence before the commission. 13. Then, to a certain extent, in fact, a man was required to have capital of some kind before the grant was made ? Yes. 14. Then it was not a free grant ? I do not see that. 15. If a man were obliged to have a certain amount of money at command to purchase stock and afford him the means of building a house before he could obtain the land, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. O it is clear that the man selected for a farm did not obtain a Mr. free grant. It was free so far as the land itself went, but not ' _^ inton if you consider the capital he would require to have before 17t fg^ ,y ' he was available under the conditions ? I do not see that. 16. Supposing two persons are equally qualified to defend a farm, the one having no capital at all, while the other has ; the one cannot carry out the conditions because he is unable to pay for the men who are to defend a certain quantity of territory and to find guns and ammunition for the purpose, and also because he is obliged to find means for building a house and stocking a farm ; the other has all these at com- mand and therefore can fulfil the conditions : is there not a wide distinction between the two ? I have already stated that we selected men who, from our knowledge of the people, were in a position to bring a small amount of stock into the district ; it might have been one hundred sheep and a span of bullocks, but we did not require extensive property, nor, in the first instance, was the man asked to build an expensive house. The commission Was satisfied for a time with mere pondoks for the grantee's family and servants. With regard to servants, I may say, that they did not as a rule bring ser- vants into the district, but in many cases some members of their own families represented the shots they were required to keep. 17. Still, where a man settles on vacant land in a very exposed position, where he is to remain three years, he must possess some means to maintain his family, so that although he gets the ground the conditions are of such a nature as virtually to form an equivalent for it? I. do net see that. A man under any circumstances purchasing a farm would necessarily take the wherewithal to live. The intention of the commission originally was that grantees should build a certain description of house, and also be compelled to put them in places convenient for the general defence of the district, or any particular block of farms ; but on represen- tations made, as I have mentioned, Sir George Cathcart remitted the condition altogether. 18. Mr. Barry '.] Are you aware of the number of appli- cants? I cannot tell, but they were very far in excess of the farms issued. 19. Chairman] One of the conditions the petitioners obje'et to is the seventh, which provides for forfeiture and reversion to the Crown in certain cases of absence, &c. ; do 4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. you not think that, under the altered circumstances of the . ^ nson co \ on y^ ^af. j s a verv stringent clause, and may be modified ^m? 7 ' * n some wa }' ^o, I do not think so ; but. as I said before, it is a political question on which my opinion would be of no value. 20. Still the committee would deem your opinion ac- ceptable if you are prepared to give it ? -Then I should say, no; I would not recommend any alteration in that clause. I may mention that the grantees can always get permission from the civil commissioner to leave their farms for a month, if it is a case of urgency ; and I believe that no instance of confiscation has yet occurred, so that the clause has not been acted upon. 21. But it has not been acted upon, perhaps, because there has been no violation? I do not think that was the reason . 22. Do you not think that a money fine could be substi- tuted in lieu of this clause ? Well, I think it might. If it were a money fine of a moderate nature it would come much harder upon the grantees, because such a fine could be put in force, whereas this clause is not. 1 do not, however, see any strong objection to it. 23. What amount would you recommend? That is a matter for the civil commissioners to advise, and for the Government to decide. 24. Still, at the same time, a money fine, if this clause were removed, would not prevent the holder of a farm obtaining a loan, whereas the present clause stands directly in the way. as the lender would be unable to tell at what time an infraction might occur? The grantee can always get permission to absent himself for a special reason. 25. Js any provision made for that? I do not think so; but I know that applications can be made to the civil com- missioner. 26. I see that article four of the conditions requires the grantee to contribute either labour or money in putting up a certain " enclosure," a description of which is stated to have been published in the Government Gazette, but cannot be traced : can you give the committee an idea of what that refers to? I believe that Sir George Cathcart had some idea of establishing rallying points in various parts of the district, in the event of a sudden irruption ; and if occasion arose he expected all the grantees to contribute money or labour in SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. 5 throwing: up a slight earthwork defence ; but it has never Mr. been required. 27. Do you not think, Mr. Robinson, that the prospects of 17i J 8 ^ uly ' the colony in regard to future wars, and to our relations with the native tribes, would justify the committee in re- commending any modifications of the conditions? I do not know anything about future wars, but I certainly could not myself recommend, if asked by the Government, any altera- tion in the terms of the conditions upon which these farms were granted. 28. You are well acquainted with the Fort Peddie district ? Yes. 29. You are aware also that there is a vast body of Fingoes located in that district ? Yes, there are large Fingo loca- tions. 30. And any alteration of the conditions required of the grantees in that neighbourhood would be very likely to be injurious to the defence of the colony ? T think any diminu- tion of white men in that district, or any frontier district, is very undesirable ; particularly so, however, in the Peddie district. I thought so strongly at the time in this respect that immediately after the late war, I exerted whatever little influence I might have had officially in reducing the size of the farms as much as possible, so as to get the largest body of men possible. In those days Peddie was part of Victoria. 31. Do the same conditions apply there as to the other grantees ? Yes. 32. Mr. Godlonton.] I believe, Mr. Robinson, you surveyed the Victoria district I mean the grants in the Kat River, and in the neighbourhood of Alice? Yes, I directed the survey of the whole of the district. 33. What extent were these farms, stating the largest and the smallest sizes? rThe farms below Peddie average five hundred morgen ; the farms between Peddie and along by Fort Willshire, sheep farms, about one thousand ; and the farms in the neighbourhood of Alice about one thousand or one thousand two hundred morgen. 34. But were not some much smaller? There may have been one or two, but not generally speaking. 35. Can you state the smallest farm you measured there ? I think the smallest were up at the Chumie, in the neighbourhood of Woest's place. I cannot give the extent, as it is now seven or eight years ago, but all information will 6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. be found in Surveyor-General's Office, where there is a tXf. R. Robinson i i p .i i* . j general plan of the district. 17 i862 n . ly ' 36. Can you charge your memory with stating that Some were not more than four hundred or five hundred morgen ? No, I cannot. Some farms in the Peddie district may have been of that extent, but I do not recollect any farms being so small in the Alice division, though I speak subject to correction. 37. Can you state the character of the country, whether it i3 a sheep or cattle country, or whether it is capable of cultivation? The farms in Aberdeen flock, that is, the country between Fort Beaufort and Alice is a very fine sheep country ; and 1 should think that some of the farms are capable of producing certainly more corn, vegetables, fruit, and so on, than the owners could consume themselves In the Chumie Hoek it is also a sheep country, but sour, and a very fine agricultural country. 38. I am referring more particularly to the high land between Alice and the Kat River : do you know of anything having been cultivated to any extent successfully, about the neighbourhood of Post Victoria ? There are a few farms there which are very dry indeed, and adapted solely for sheep. 39. Incapable of cultivation ? Decidedly ; but I do not think more than a dozen were granted. That is on the right hand side of the road from Alice to Peddie, past Post Vic- toria. On the left hand side you get the Kieskama, not only a very fine sheep country, but on the river a very fair portion of agricultural ground. 40. My object is to ascertain whether, in your opinion, sup- posing that the farms in that dry country were measured as not exceeding 600 morgen of land, do you think that a grantee would be able to get a living as a sheep-farmer, the ground being incapable of cultivation ? -He would get a living, but possibly a very bare living. 41. Would not such a grant be very limited for pasturing sheep ? It would ; but I do not think there are half a dozen such in the locality referred to. 42. Supposing there are farms not exceeding 400 or 500 morgen in extent, in a sheep country not capable of cultiva- tion, do you think it would be advantageous that Government should permit these farms to be disposed of to other people, that is, to relieve them from the operation of the stringent SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. 7 conditions of tenure ? - No, I do not ; simply for this reason : Mr. I think individual interests ought not to be considered where ' 1__ nM " great public interests are at stake. 1T *ie? r ' 43. That, of course, is a very good principle to maintain ; but is it any advantage to the country, do you think, to keep a man upon a farm where his living upon it will ruin himself and family ? He can always sell. The grants permit a sale after three years' occupation, subject to the same conditions on which the grant was made. 44. But not otherwise % No. 45. Mr. Tucker ] Are you aware, that some of the Queen's Town farms are without wood and water ? No. I should think it exceedingly probable that on some wood is very scarce ; but I do not know any farm without water. I cannot say what the recent drought may have occasioned, but I know that when the farms were issued, my instructions were to give water to all where possible ; and I never allowed the boundary of a farm to cross a river ; for that purpose I gave the farm all the water frontage I could. I sketched every farm myself, and where there was no water frontage there was a spring. 46. But I know personally that in the Cradock division there is at least one such farm, and that is Brakpan? In that case it was impossible to give water frontage, for it was a dry flat, but there was a little spring or kuil on the farm, and Perreira, the man who took it, knew well what it was. 47. Then you admit that there are farms without wood and water? No. I admit that very probably there are a few farms without wood, but I do not know that any farm is absolutely without water, not even Brakpan, bad as it is. 48. Are* you aware that some of the Queen's Town farms consist only of a bleak open flat, on which it is impossible to maintain stock in the winter months ? I am not aware of it. That was another point, as far as I recollect, that was always borne in view, to give every farm mountain veld if it could be managed, knowing the difficulty farmers would experience without it. 49. Brakpan, to my knowledge, has no water, no wood, and with its 1,500 morgen will not pasture 500 sheep ? Brakpan, I admit, is an exception to the general rule. 50. And that is a farm subject to all the conditions imposed 7 Yes. 5 1 . Mr. Barry.] Do you think that that farm if put up 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE D ^ r ;. to auction would be sold under its present restrictions? M. R. Rabin son r . _ Yes; there are many iarms in the Cradock district like it. ' i862 Uy ' It would realize money ; but it is a very bad farm, no doubt about it. 52. Mr. Tucker.'] Is there not this difference between Brakpan and the Cradock farms, that the neighbours in the Cradock division would buy the farm for the sake of additional pasture land ? Clearly so. 53. You cannot state that there are not such farms in the Queen's Town district as I have been now describing, without wood and water, and a bleak open country ? I do not know any farm absolutely without wood and water. There are farms on bleak, open spots, undoubtedly, as must be the case in every district; some of the farms, no doubt, are of little value. 54. Do you think it objectionable that an individual should hold more than one farm, providing he keeps the number of shots stipulated .in the conditions ready for service ? I do. It would interfere with the defence of the district. It is better to have the owner himself on his farm, as a general principle. 55. Do you think it absolutely necessary to insist upon personal occupation by the proprietor, providing that the tenant or occupant is prepared to keep the requisite number of shots ? I think it absolutely necessary that the owner of the farm should be the occupier. 56. You think that although there are farms in the Queen's Town district, with bleak, open country, where stock cannot be kept throughout the year, these conditions should equally apply to such farms? I do think so. The farms you have mentioned must be very small in number, and I 'think it is wrong to upset the general principle for the relief of occu- pants who have the means of relieving themselves if they are not satisfied. 57. Do you not think that it would be very advantageous if such farms as I have been describing were incorporated with the surrounding farms, such incorporation not having the effect of diminishing; the number of shots ? I have already answered that question. 58. Taking, for instance, the case of Brakpan : supposing that subdivided by the proprietor and sold to the neighbour- ing occupants, the purchasers keeping the additional shots required, would not the general purpose of defence, as well SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDI E GRANTEES. 9 as the actual interests of the proprietors, be as well served ? Mr. 1 think not so securely. I do not think it would make any M - R -J^ inson great difference, but my reply is unfavourable. i:t JV*> u,y ' 59. In what way would it be unfavourable if an adjoining: farmer with 2,000 morgen in his possession were to purchase another thousand from the next farm, coming under the provisions of keeping the additional shots? I answer that if you commence acting upon such a principle, you will not know where to stop ; you will have constantly to decide which are bad farms and which are good, which are capable of subdivision and which are not I think it would be putting in the thin edge of the wedge and upsetting a useful principle, which is extremely undesirable. 60. But providing the shots were maintained, what injury would arise to the country? You have not the owner of the farm. 61. It passes into the hands of a purchaser who will be the owner, only that instead of being the owner of 2,000 morgen he is now the owner of 3,000, and we know there are owners of grants of upwards of 3,000 morgen? Not in the Queen's Town district. Mr. T H. Bowker's is the largest grant there, and his is not 3,000. The average size of the farms is 1,500 morgen, and where some few isolated farms were in bleak, exposed flats, the commission invariably increased the size of the farm for that reason, and reduced quitrent. If Brakpan is 1,500, you will probably find that it is in excess of the grants in the immediate neighbourhood. As we got north to the Stormberg, as a rule, we o-ave in quantity to make up for quality. 62. Then you think, supposing a case like that of Brakpan should occur, it is not desirable to allow it to be subdivided or sold to adjoining farmers, even providing the number of shots?-- 1 think not. I think it would be upsetting a great principle for individual advantage. Sir Walter Currie examined. 63. Chairman.] You are aware that certain parties in the Sir Queen's Town, Victoria, and Stockenstrom divisions hold Waiur c >#;*. lands upon certain conditions? Yes. 64. Would you be kind enough to look at the document I hold in my hand ? I believe these are the conditions under which these lands are generally held. I have seen them before. C. 5. *62. PEDDIE GRANTEES 2. ^ 10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE sir 65. Complaints are made by the grantees that in conse- a ^^"' ,ie - q Uence f t| ie stringency of these conditions they are unable 1 ' t ] 1 8 ^2 Uly ' t0 improve their lands or to purchase contiguous farms ; would j'ou suggest that any alterations should he made in these conditions? No; I am of opinion that no alteration whatever should be made. The time has not yet arrived when such alteration can take place without danger to the grantees themselves and to the country generally. The object for which the grants were given was the defence of the country, and any alteration would, in my opinion, inter- fere very much with the defence of the country. (>6. But you do not apprehend danger ? The danger has never been taken away ; there it is, all around them. 67. I mean the danger you refer to is in prospect ? It is just the same now as when they occupied their grants first. There is the same danger to be apprehended if they now change the terms of that military tenure as there was then. The Kafirs are all there where they were before, and there are the Fingoes thicker than they were when the grantees first took possession, Kama's tribe just along the river, and all the other Kafirs living as fur as Mount Coke, have increased from three hundred to thousands. Kama went there with three hundred, ami now he has more than three thousand. These grantees, therefore, it is cl^ar, are in the same danger still. Jn our time we will never be able to alter the conditions without danger. 68. Do you think that some of the conditions may admit of modifications ; for instance clause 7, which provides for forfeiture of the grants and reversion to the Crown in certain specified cases, such as absence, &c. Could you suggest any alteration in that 1 I have been listening to the evidence given by Mr. Robinson, and I do not see that anything can be altered with any advantage to the grantees or to the general protection of the counry. These isolated cases, I think, had better be left isolated than break in upon the prin- ciple upon which the grants were established, for such a course would be dangerous. 69. Mr Godlonton.] Then you think the time has not arrived for making an alteration? Certainly not. 70. Chairman ] The difficulty arising out of clause 7 is not an isolated case, but a general one. One of the com- plaints is, that if a man wishing to mortgage his farm seeks to raise money in that way to improve it, capitalists will not SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. I 1 advance, because the condition alluded toby clause 7 may be s:r infringed and the farm be declared forfeited. Could you ate ^__ uri suggest to the committee anything'in lieu of the stringency I7t ]V,j , " ,y ' of that clause ? I really do not know what I could suggest. It would not do to allow these people to be off their farms ; and I think it is much better that they should be bound and kept there by a stringent law of this kind than that they should borrow money upon their farms and then desert and leave them open, as would probably happen After a man has once borrowed, and his farm is given up, the party will not care a straw about leaving, or he may become bankrupt and leave it, and then the property will be confiscated ; and by that means a lot of these people will get rid of their farms, by abandoning them, after borrowing money upon them 71. No man would think of abandoning; a farm for which he has not received value; because no capitalist will advance money except at one half or one third of the value, and a grantee would not give up his land, with all the improve- ments upon it, for the sake of one third of the capital ? I am not so sure about that. I think many would, if you put them in a position which enables them to do it. 72. Dd you not think it wiil answer the purpose just as well if Government were to inflict a heavy money fine, and do away with the personal occupation clause ? I do not think a fine would have the effect of a probable forfeiture. 73. Because a money fine, doing away with this servitude, would, I think, justify a capitalist in advancing money. He would feel himself secure, whereas the stringency of the present clause is of such a nature that he never could feel himself' safe while it was in existence? The object was, to make the condition so as to keep the people on their farms ; and it is just as necessary to hold that in view now as it was at the time when the grants were first made I do not think that any money fine would have the good result which the working of the present clause has. 74. And you think the conditions should be enforced now just as stringently as when these people were first located there? I do indeed; for I can see no difference in the position of the grantees now, and I have been to every one of the districts. The Tambookies, at Queens Town, are more numerous than ever they were, and more inclined to be impudent. I conceive that, since the famine, Anta's 12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE sir people, the Gaikas, and Sandillj's people also, are becoming uter^jxme. more numer0 us j n that location, and along that line of coun- 17 *^ 2 uly ' try. The Fingoes, at Keiskama Hoek, are also becoming more numerous. That goes three parts round Queen's Town. And it is just the same coming down Victoria; 1 found the Kafirs thick on every side. I repeat, therefore, that T do not see how you can make any alteration in the conditions. It is dangerous to do it. The farms were taken voluntarily for the defence of the country ; they have risen from almost nothing in value until they are worth about 1 an acre ; so that there is not much hardship in the matter Besides, the grantees can easily sell them whenever they wish to leave. 1 have seen farms sold there for more than 1 an acre. 75. Not under servitude? A quitrent farm and a free- hold. In my opinion not one of the conditions should be omitted. I would rather they were strictly adhered to. 76. Mr. Barry.'] The system at present works very well, does it not ? Yes. From the number of applicants always ready to take possession of ground on the same conditions, and from the large sums these farms fetch whenever put up to public auction, it is clear that it does. 77. Chairman.'] Have you ever heard the farmers complain that the conditions were so stringent as to put them under considerable disadvantage? I have heard farmers themselves say that there are objections which they wished they could get rid of, as would any one under the same circumstances. 78. But still, notwithstanding their statements, they have purchased ? Yes. 79 Although they felt that a grievance, it has not deterred them nom buying the land when offered "for sale? No. It does diminish the value of the property, of course ; it always must, to a certain extent. 80. Mr. Tucker.] Are you aware that there are some Queen's Town farms without wood and water? Not without water. 81. Are you aware that some consist of an open, flat country, and that it is impossible to retain farming stock there in the winter months without the advantage of mountain pasture ? I think it is very likely. I know that the country is flat in many parts, and that it is probable they could not keep stock there during the winter. 82 Do you think it objectionable that an individual should hold more than one farm, provided he keeps the necessary SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. 13 number of shots ? I think it is decidedly objectionable. One Sir Walter Currie. of the conditions bears on that very point. 83. Is not the principle of this stipulation that a certain 17t f 8G J 2 uly number of uen should always be ready for defensive purposes ? That is one. But to keep the right men there, the proprietor is the best man to have at the head of these two or three men ; and besides, you never can be sure that the grantees will not have Kafirs as shots. 84. That might be guarded against ? Not so easily as if you keep what you have as a certainty. In my opinion, you ought to make no alteration. 85. With reference to these exposed bleak farms, do you think there is any reasonable objection to such farms being subdivided and sold to the adjoining proprietors provided the required number of shots is still kept up? I only object to it on principle that it will be breaking into a measure so as to be dangerous to the country, and the time has not arrived for doing that. What is best to be done with a farm such as that described in the question, I do not quite know. Of course the parties who took the farms knevy very well what they were taking, for they asked to be allowed to go there. There can only be very few farms so very bad in character, and I believe it would be better for the country to have them forfeited at once than to have them cut up and sold at present. That is my opinion. 86. i\ir. de Wet.] Suppose Government were to allow these farms to be cut up in one or more lot?, but stipulated that to each of these lots the same conditions should be attached as to the original grant : would that not tend to strengthen the defence of the frontier ? It is a dangerous principle to act upon, for you would not know where to stop. A reat number will suddenly find their farms very bad, and you will have no end of petitions requesting that they should be cut up. I do not think, therefore, that you better the condition of the colony by touching upon that point at all. 87. Will the adoption of such a plan not tend to increase population, and so increase your strength?- I do not think we will at all increase our strength in that way. 88. 1 observe that the non-compliance with some of the conditions is attended with forfeiture of the grant to Govern- ment : do you not think that this prevents grantees obtaining money on security of such farms for making improvements, and may not these conditions be so modified that in the event 14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Sit of any forfeiture the farm should be sold to the highest a ^_ ur ' ie -\ ) \^ er ^ subject to the lien or mortgage placed upon it, which 17t i86 J 2 Uly< snou W form a first charge upon the proceeds of the sale ? I do not see any objection to that, because it would not inter- fere with the defence of the country, nor would it be like letting another proprietor acquire possession of more land than was originally granted to him. 89. Mr. Godlonton.] Do you not think, Sir Walter Currie, upon the score of expense, that it is much better to have an occupant with sufficient means at his disposal than a poor man without such means ? Decidedly. 1 was one of the commission which sat for the purpose of passing those grantees who went into Kaffraria when the last farms in that direction were occupied, and one qualification we deter- mined on was that each grantee should show that he was possessed of at least 300 to enable him to go there and take a small farm. 90. Do you not think that it would be good policy to facilitate such transfer of property, and that you could most effectually do so by the removal of the condition of forfeiture ? No. certainly not, that is paying too dear for it. The danger of removing the condition is that these men would acquire property after property and provide inadequately for the defence. Just after the farms were granted, on the occasion of the Kafir panic, I went myself and rode night and day up and down the line to prevent these grantees going off in spite of the value of what they possessed. Three times I turned them back when they were ready inspanned to trek. 1 hese grantees were running away because they had plenty of property and were afraid to risk it, so that the argument as to having well-to-do grantees cuts both ways. 91. Supposing the land could be subdivided with a view to securing a larger population and a stronger defence, would it not be so limiting the extent of the land that the proprietor could not live upon it ? You might reduce the extent of the farms until a rich proprietor could not live, but the more you reduce, the better for the poor people, who do not require to farm so largely. The object of having small farms was to get a thick population. Reduction in size would of course be better for the country, but you could not have large farms. 92. Chairman.] One of the objects of the petitioners is to obtain a reduction in size, but yet you declined just now SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDD1E GRANTEES. 15 interfering: in any wav with the stringency of the conditions? Sir Walter Currie. You would not find more than half a dozen farms that you could cut up in that way in the whole of the Queen's Town ^^g^ 17 ' flistrict, and you would overturn a great established condition of tenure in order to do good to a few isolated proprietors. If you once break through the condition of personal tenure you will have all the grantees endeavouring to do the same thing. 93. Mr. Tucker.] If you give a man who has already 1,500 acres 500 more by purchase from an adjoining pro- prietor does it not make it more worth his while to farm on that land, and what harm would result, provided he keeps the necessary additional shot ? You lose a proprietor with a separate and distinct establishment of his own. The added farm would be neglected, the homestead would sink into nothing, and the land would only form a run in and out for the neighbouring stocks. As to the additional shots that would be provided, my fear is that if you reduce the sub- stantial proprietor with his establishment to two or three more shots attached to the establishment of the owner of the next farm, that owner may be very indifferent as to the character of those whom he keeps as shots. I know what sort of people are sometimes employed in this way even Kafirs ; and we may fancy what such " shots '' would be likely to do in the event of a disturbance. 94. Mr. de Wet.] What is the greatest extent of a granted farm ? There are one or two exceptions, but the general size is 3,000 acres. After three years' personal occupation the grantees have a rignt to sell ; but that was a principle to which I was always opposed. I was in favour of giving a man a grant and allowing him to sell it next week if he chose. 95. Mr. Godlonton,] Looking to the evidence you have given, then, it is your decided opinion that the circumstances of the country in reference to the native tribes are not such as will warrant the relaxation of any of the conditions imposed upon the grantees in question : that, in fact, the relaxation or removal of them would tend, by weakening the frontier, to endanger the peace of the colony? That is my firm opinion. 16 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Saturday, 19M July, 1862. present: ' Mr. Tucker (Chairman), Mr. Barry, Mr. de ^ Mr. Godlonton, Mr. T. H. Bowker, Member of the House of Assembly for Victoria East, examined. Mr. t. h. Bowker. QQ m Chairman.] Are you acquainted with the conditions 19th July, attached to the grants in the Queen's Town, Victoria, and 1862# Stockenstrom districts? Yes, I am pretty well acquainted with them, having been the party who originally drew up the scheme. 97. Taking them as a whole, do you think it prudent or desirable to relax any of the conditions? 1 think they might be relaxed with advantage to all parties, in some respecis, without interfering in the slightest degree with the main principle of defence, as comprised in the third paragraph of the plan I submitted to Sir George Cathcart, which provides that for every thousand acr< j s of land so granted the occupant shall be bound to support and maintain one completely armed and mounted man for the public service. 98. You take that to be the main principle of the system? It is. Such man to be approved of by the field-cornet and magistrate. There is another paragraph of great im- portance also in the original conditions; it is nineteen,- which states that with the exception of the defence regulations upon which the farms are held, all other matters should be regu- lated according to the colonial law and usage ; by which it was intended by myself that, no matter into whose hands the possession of the land fell, the condition that every thousand acres must keep its man ready for the public service should be maintained. 99. And not personal occupation of the proprietor? The personal occupation was provided for for the first three years ; but after that it was not to be insisted on. 100. Then you do not look upon the personal occupation of the proprietors as being the main principle of the system so much as that every thousand acres should provide an SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEUDIE GRANTEES. 17 efficient shot, approved of by the field- cornet and magistrate? Mr. Exactly so. Sir George Cathcart asked me why I insisted T ' H ' Bo,v ker - on the three years' personal occupation. I said, to crive the 1JM * ^ ] y> thing a trial, and time to take root. 1 said, after three years we shall know whether the system is worth keeping up or not. 101. Do you think, umler the present circumstances of the colony, that it is desirable to relax that one provision of personal occupation by the proprietor ? Provided that an armed and mounted man for every thousand acres is insisted upon by the Government, it is immaterial who the proprietor may be. The first three years were the great difficulty, and having got over them, I consider that the system is safe. I would never, however, under any circumstances, relax the principle that every thousand acres should be bound to fur- nish an armed and mounted man, approved of by the field- cornet and magistrate. 102. You are aware that the grantees find some difficulty in raising mortgages on their farms, owing to forfeiture attaching if the conditions of grant are not observed ? Yes, I am aware of that ; and in regard to my own case, having eventually become a grantee, I found that a very serious difficulty. I was unable to raise any money, and from having lost in the war all the movable property I possessed, I found that the difficulty was so great that it ultimately cost me as much as a purchased farm. 103. Would you think it desirable to alter this uncondi- tional forfeiture into a conditional forfeiture ; say, supposing a grantee has raised, we will say, a thousand pounds on his farm, and afterwards forfeits it, and the farm is sold by Gov- ernment, that in such case the mortgagee should be entitled to repayment to such extent as the land realizes ? I think that is a provision which ought to be conceded, and could not injustice be denied. 104. You do not think that any right of Government would be infringed by such an alteration as that ? None whatever. 105. And you do not think that it is the object of the Government to make money out of these accidental forfei- tures ? I believe not. 106. Do you believe that such an alteration as this would facilitate the raising of money for the purpose of improving these farms ? I have no doubt it would be a considerable C. j-\-2, PEDDIE GRANTEES.-,",. T> 18 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. advantage to the grantees, and in nowise injure the defen- T. H. Bowker. 1 J . sive principle. 19t i862 Uly ' *^7. ^ ou ^k u P on it as a whole that the system has worked well hitherto ? There is a concurrent testimony upon all sides that it has worked well, in spite of all prognos- tications to the contrary. 108. Mr. Barry.'] Are the farms still occupied by the original grantees ? Principally. I may mention that many parties who were entitled to grants took them with an idea that they would not settle, but would stand out the condition of three years' personal occupation by simply keeping the places for that period. They changed their minds, however, when they saw that their neighbours were improving their farms while they themselves were losing. A large party of brothers, I know, intended to hold out for three years and then sell ; but after waiting a twelvemonth, turned to and made bricks, and so established themselves before the three years' personal occupation was up. They found it was belt to improve the place, and when they found that improving the place tended so greatly to their own advantage they did not want to sell ; and there was thus not one quarter of the sales took place I had anticipated. 109. Some sales did take place ? Yes. 110. And do you consider the present proprietor as efficient as the original grantee on the farms which have so changed hands? If not, it is the fault of the magistrate and field-cornets, who have the supervision of them. 111. But as far as your personal knowledge goes, are the substitutes efficient men ? Generally speaking, they are. 112. If em original grantee becomes old, or otherwise ceases to be an effective man, is he bound to keep another shot in his place ? He is. 113. And is at the same time bound to continue personal occupation ? Yes ; but the personal occupation of the gran- tee need not, I think, have been insisted on after the first three years, for after that time I consider the system had taken root, so as to dispense with the personal occupation condition. Still, if giving that liberty would endanger in the slightest degree the efficiency of the system as a whole, 1 would be the last to rescind anything at all. 1 14. The occupant is expected to be an effective indivi- dual and a good shot. Now, should it so happen that three or four of these farms fall into the hands of one individual, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. 19 and he place a servant, perhaps even a black man, on the Mr. property, do you consider that that would be carrying out the T ' H ' Bowker - spirit of the conditions on which the land was granted? I 19th Jul y> would not. We have some black men on the frontier of high character, but they are rare. J 15. But I mean an ordinary servant. Do you think that such a servant, subject to the restrictions, would be equal to an effective occupant? I should think not. I would rather have the personal occupancy of the proprietor. In the original distribution of the farms, in Sir George Cathcart's time, about seven or eight parties were found who had good claims to farms, but who were not able, for certain reasons, to act up to the condition of personal occupation. In these cases the grants were made special grants but this did not in any way injure the general system. I considered the value of personal occupation such that during the distribu- tion of the land, when applied to several times to know if I would not become a grantee, I refused on this principle, that I could not fulfil the conditions of personal occupation, and whatever it cost me I could not make other men conform to a condition I would break myself. 116. Mr. de Wet.~\ Are you aware whether many confis- cations have taken place under these conditions ? Only two that I remember. In both cases the parties absented them- selves, and their farms were given to others. 117. And what was the number of grants made? About four hundred. 1J8. As far as you are aware, Mr. Bowker, have these conditions been regularly enforced? Yes; the Queens Town musters take place periodically. I called lately upon Govern- ment, through the Parliament, for a return of the number of grantees assembling at such musters, but the Government, not having regular information supplied to it, the return was very meagre. I have a letter in my possession, written on the field, at the last Queen's Town muster, in which the writer states that he thinks there were on that occasion, in spite of the bad weather, about eight hundred men on the field, and that they formed such a body of men as it was quite a cheering sight to see ; that, in fact, he had never seen such a body of men before, all splendidly armed and mounted. 119. Then you would consider this an additional induce- ment to relax any condition not absolutely required ?- Any Mr. T. H. Bowker. 20 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE condition might be relaxed that did not endanger the defence regulation. 1862! y ' 120. Mr. Godlonton.] I understood you to 'say that there were only two cases of forfeiture within your knowledge ? Yes, when I was a commissioner. There may have been since. 121. And how long had the parties who forfeited their land resided on it ? Only for a short time. 122. Can you say what they had done in the way of building or cultivation ? They did nothing more than erect huts ; no permanent buildings. 123. And no extensive cultivation ? No. 124. Then do I understand that you are of opinion the conditions might be so far relaxed without any detriment to the defence of the border as to permit of the sale of the grant, provided one shot for each thousand acres be insisted on, subject to the approval of the field-cornet ; and that you are further of opinion that in the event of forfeiture under the Government condition, the interests of any mortgagee should be secured, which, in the event, of sale by the Government, should be a first charge on the property 1 That is my opinion. Mr. C. Scanlen, Member of the House of Assembly for Cradock, examined. Mr. c. Scanim. 125. Chairman.] You are aware that the grantees in the Queen's Town, Kat River, and Victoria divisions have lately petitioned Parliament for some relaxation of the conditions under which they hold their farms ? Yes, they have. 126 Do you think that one prayer which they make may be complied with, viz., allowing a proprietor to hold more than one farm in the district ? For my own part, I am not by any means inclined to recommend the rescinding of any of the regulations on which the land is granted, except in regard to the preference of mortgages in case of sale. 127. You think that the unsettled and disturbed state of the country demands that these restrictions should be en- forced ? Yes, at all hazards : that particular restriction you have mentioned, in conjunction with all the others, being part and parcel of the original plan on which the farms were granted. 128. Are you aware of any of the farms in the Queen's Town district being insufficient, from the quality of the w r ood or water, for farming purposes throughout the year? In C. Scanlen. SELECT COMMITTEE ON PEDDIE GRANTEES. 21 respect of want of wood the Queen's Town division is very Mr similar to the whole of the Cradock division, which, as a i9th July, whole, I even think is less wooded than Queen's Town. The same remark applies to water, for I believe Queen's Town is better watered than Cradock and Somerset ; and I am certain it is better watered than Colesberg. 129. Then you think, having considered the subject, that the only relaxation that should be made is with reference to the unconditional forfeiture ; you would introduce a clause in favour of the rights of the mortgagee? Yes. I took upon myself to recommend that some time ago, but it has never been acted upon. 130. Is it within your knowledge that any applicant for money on his farm has been unable to raise means for its improvement, owing to this condition of forfeiture ? Yes ; this very week an applicant submitted the title of a farm for which he had paid 2,000 within a few shillings, and re- quested from the Master an advance of 600. The appraise- ment sent was submitted to myself for my opinion as to its correctness, and I stated that I believed it to be below the real yalue of the farm. There was, therefore, no risk what- ever in advancing the 600 ; but the request was refused on the ground that should the farm become forfeited the mort- gage fell to the ground. This is only one instance out of many. I could refer to half a dozen, but merely mention this one as having occurred within the last week. 131. Then you think that the effect of the retention of the condition is not to benefit the Government, but to prevent that improvement in the districts you have referred to which would otherwise take place ? Decidedly, for in all the instances I know, the loans applied for on first mortgage have been sought for the purpose of improving and making more available the very land on which the mortgage was asked. C. 5 '62. PEDDIE GRANTEES.- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. AA 000 118 631 I PLEAS5 DO NOT REMOVE THIS BOOK CARDU ^LIBRARY^ so '^OJITVDJO^ University Research Library _^