Koelkap Farm, Piketberg. Sketch by JC Poortermans, 1849. (Africana Museum 6364)
Overview
Land use and ownership have long reflected the lifestyle and basic needs of communities. When land is developed through effort and expense to yield greater future harvests, it leads to more settled communities and associated land ownership.
Various systems of land use and ownership have been implemented since 1652. Documentation was issued to individuals specifying conditions, which could vary. Over time, documents were issued for three types: grazing rights, loan farms, and freehold farms. In 1813, this was replaced by the perpetual quitrent system, which is still in use today.
From 1652, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) considered itself the owner of all land under its control, except for freehold farms and plots. Successive governments continued this view. As early as 1655, specific Cape Town residents were permitted to establish gardens and keep animals. Permits were issued, but no rent or levy was payable on the land, which remained VOC property.
In 1657, the five-year contract period for some VOC officials expired, and they were allowed to settle along the Liesbeek River with the promise that the land they cultivated and planted could become theirs after three years, provided conditions were met, such as clearing the bush, building a house, installing water, and proving they could sustain themselves from the land.
Key differences
Grazing Rights (1657-1714)
(Weiregte)
Grazing rights meant a person only had the right to keep livestock on a certain piece of land. It was strictly forbidden to cultivate the land or erect buildings. Annual permits were issued free of charge, roughly describing the area where they applied.
In 1691, Simon van der Stel decreed that people could not own livestock unless they had a fixed loan or freehold farm in the three districts of the time: Cape Town, Stellenbosch, or Drakenstein, and gave them time to acquire one. Grazing rights were abolished in 1714.
Loan Farms (1657-1813)
(Leningsplase)
Loan farms were leased only to farmers and were considered the property of the VOC. The rulers also had the right to terminate the lease at any time with appropriate compensation. Livestock could be kept, and farmers were allowed to garden and sow. However, they were not permitted to plant trees.
Until 1677, farms were leased free of charge, but thereafter at one-tenth of the grain harvest. In addition to the harvest levy, from 1714, recognition money (rent) of 12 rixdollars per year was payable, which was increased over time. The introduction of recognition money came with permission to sell buildings to the new tenant upon evacuation. Tenants who abandoned loan farms without notice were not compensated for improvements.
In 1743, permission was given to convert loan farms to freehold provided they were no larger than 60 morgen (about 50 acres). The 60-morgen limit was only removed in 1813 with the introduction of perpetual quitrent, converting all loan and freehold farms. Theoretically, unconverted loan farms would remain state property.
Loan Farms were defined as being half an hour’s walk in each direction from a central point (usually a spring) called the Ordonnantie. This resulted in a circular farm having a diameter of one hour’s walking. The concept of one hour was obviously flawed as the terrain and the speed of the walker could result in large variations. Later a fixed radius of 750 Rhynland’s Roods was set. A Rhynland’s Rood was a Dutch unit of length later called a Cape Rood and equaled 12 Dutch/Cape feet or 3.778 metres. The resultant area of a loan farm was approximately 3000 morgen (about 2500 hectares), which became the standard area of a farm in southern Africa. The actual size of the Loan Farm was not so important. What was important was the ownership of the water in the area. No matter how wide spread were the Loan Farms, the fact that all the springs were occupied had serious implications for the Khoisan population, who were nomadic pastoralists.
The farm Doornboom on which the WC town Heidelberg was laid out in 1855, was a typical early circular farm.
There was no full security of land tenure prior to the conversion of loan farms to Perpetual Quitrent farms (1813) and ultimately to freehold farms in the late 1800s, because the land was owned by the State and rented to the Trekboers. Where much of the land was used for seasonal grazing only, it did not make economic sense to build large permanent houses on land which was rented or only seasonally occupied.
Quitrent Farms (1732-1826)
(Leningsplase / Erfpag)
Also "quit-rent". The quitrent system for loan farms was introduced in 1732, leasing them for 15 years. Recognition money was still paid, but the farm could now be bequeathed or sublet for the unexpired portion of the 15 years. The last 15-year quitrent issuance was in 1811, so the system effectively ended in 1826.
"In 1732 a new system was introduced by which loan farms could be converted to quitrent farms and leased for 15 years. The new system gave owners all the rights of ownership and encouraged more permanent settlement and development of the former loan farms. However, the government retained the right to reclaim the land. Owners could, however, apply to have their quitrent farms converted to freehold properties. These properties were often referred to as “redeemed quitrent land”.
Freehold Farms (1657-1813)
(Eiendomsplase, eigenaarsplaatsen)
Diagram of a freehold farm, 1794.
Freehold farms were fully owned by the owner. The VOC, as well as later rulers, could never expropriate them. Livestock could be kept, gardens made and sown, trees planted, and buildings erected. These farms could not exceed 60 morgen. The first freehold farm was granted to Jacob Cloete in October 1657.
In 1686, the Lord of Mydrecht decreed that all freehold land, farms, and plots must be registered by the Secretary of the Political Council in a title deed book. All owners had to submit their proofs (basically a piece of paper) and obtain proper title deeds. Where owners no longer had proofs, neighbors testified to their claims.
Freehold farms were initially assigned only to the applicant. A document was issued specifying conditions for staying and using the land. Only after proving the ability to support themselves and not become a burden on society was the land granted and a title deed issued. The assignment period was usually 3 years, but it often took longer before final grant and issuance.
Unlike the rough boundary descriptions for grazing and loan farms, freehold farms were measured, but their exact locations were not always clear. Since freeholds could not exceed 60 morgen, the easiest measurement was a rectangular piece of 60 roods by 600 roods.
With the introduction of perpetual quitrent in 1813, freehold farms were converted, with few exceptions. Unconverted farms had to be properly surveyed.
In 1840, the British government began granting freeholds again, but this was soon abolished.
Perpetual Quitrent Farms (1813-Present)
(Ewigdurende Erfpagplase)
The current perpetual quitrent system was established in 1813 by British Governor Sir John F. Cradock. Broadly, these farms align with freeholds except that the state has the right to expropriate them with compensation.
Converting loan and freehold farms to perpetual quitrent required an application; the land was inspected, surveyed, and mapped; ownership registered; and a title deed issued. This conversion was not without problems. There was a shortage of surveyors and survey beacons on mountain peaks, especially inland. Incompetent surveyors used different methods, making some diagrams and sizes unreliable, requiring later resurveys. There was also bureaucratic delay in landdrost offices for approvals. Only 4 farms were converted in 1814, and about 300 from 1818-1827, building a huge backlog.
The system of perpetual quitrent was an important shift as it enabled holders to improve their farms with security, which was not the case under the old loan farm system where they did not technically own the land.
Perpetual quitrent was a more secure form of land tenure introduced by the British to encourage the farmers to make more long term improvements to their farms. Prior to this the farms were leased for a sum of twelve Rixdollars (later Rd24) a year from the Dutch East India Company, who in theory could cancel the lease at any time although in practice this seldom happened, especially in the frontier regions. Registration of a quitrent farm imposed significantly higher costs than the old system, namely a surveying and inspection fee and annual levy, and as such indicates permanence of settlement and formalization of ownership.
Perpetual quitrent was later often merely refered to as quitrent:
"Therefore I the Acting Lieutenant Governor of the Transvaal…hereby grant, cede and transfer unto the Council…the said portion of the quitrent farm or piece of land…particularly known as ‘Joubert Park’…The land hereby granted shall... for ever remain dedicated for the purposes of or incidental to the recreation and amusement of the inhabitants of the Municipality of Johannesburg." (1905)
Request Farms - Temporary - After 1813
(Rekwesplase)
Farmers sometimes waited decades from application to receiving title deeds. They occupied and worked the "requested" farms as if owned. Theoretically, they had no legal claim, but farmers often recognized each other's claims and sold among themselves. The government opposed but tolerated this. By 1850, most request farms were surveyed and the situation was under control.
Land Ownership by Women
(Grondbesit deur vroue)
Until about 1840, property was registered in women's names only exceptionally, simply because there was no need.
Where a widow's ownership was documented, married women kept maiden names, a custom fading after 1800 under English influence. E.g., Sara de Klerk, while married, was Sara de Klerk wife of Jacob Erasmus; after his death, widow Jacob Erasmus, or widow De Klerk or Sara de Klerk, but not Sara Erasmus.
Crown Lands Act (1860-1878)
Crown land = all land within the Cape Colony's boundaries not occupied or granted to non-indigenous persons.
Formally titled Act for Regulating the Manner in which Crown Lands at the Cape of Good Hope shall be disposed of, was a key piece of legislation passed by the first Parliament of the Cape Colony (under British rule) to standardize and regulate the disposal of Crown lands - that is, all "waste and unappropriated" land not already in private ownership. It reflected the colonial view that unoccupied or communally used land belonged to the Crown, enabling further settler expansion.
The Act treated vast tracts as Crown property, facilitating their alienation (sale or lease) to settlers, often at the expense of indigenous pastoral communities (e.g., Khoisan groups) who used them nomadically for grazing without formal title under colonial law. The Act was one of the early efforts by parliament to manage expanding settlement amid population growth, frontier expansion, and economic needs.
This 1860 Act built directly on the perpetual quitrent framework introduced in 1813 which converted many loan farms and freeholds to more secure titles with quitrent payments. By 1860, it shifted toward sales of remaining Crown land under quitrent, marking a transition from older VOC-era practices (loan farms, limited freeholds) to more commercialized, revenue-focused disposal under British parliamentary rule. It applied specifically to the Cape Colony and its districts.
It reintroduced and formalized the quitrent system (building on the Perpetual Quitrent Proclamation of 1813 under Governor Cradock), requiring that Crown lands be sold subject to an annual quitrent (a perpetual rent or acknowledgment fee paid to the Crown) on each lot.
Sales were at a reserved minimum price set to cover costs like inspection, surveying, beacon erection, and issuing title deeds. This aimed to generate revenue for the colonial government, encourage orderly settlement, and prevent haphazard or speculative claims on remaining unallocated land.
The benefits of leasing as opposed to sale were expounded, with the result that in 1864 the Crown Lands Leasing Act was passed, providing for the auction of Crown Land leases for up to twenty-one years. The object was to broaden the range of applicants for Crown Lands, by allowing the poorer frontiersmen, without capital to obtain a secure, if temporary title to land.
The Act was repealed in 1878.
Hut Tax
The hut tax was a colonial tax imposed by European powers (mainly British) on African households, calculated per dwelling (hut) and typically paid in cash, labor, or livestock. It aimed to raise revenue, force Africans into the colonial labor market (mines, farms), and promote a cash-based economy.
The primary goal was to generate revenue for colonial administrations and to compel indigenous people to work for wages, as cash was needed to pay the tax. It forced subsistence farmers to seek employment in cities or mines, disrupting traditional economies.
It was first introduced in Natal in 1849.
"In 1879 hut tax was first paid in the united territories of Emigrant Tembuland and Tembuland Proper. Before that date the Cape Colony had borne the expense of maintaining establishments without deriving any direct revenue from the people beyond a trifling amount as licences and quitrent from the few European traders and farmers in Tembuland Proper."
White land tenure in the Z.A.R.
The ZAR “Hour-on-Horseback” Farm System (1850s-1885)
"As a result of the low population density, untamed terrain and lack of disposable wealth in the Transvaal, it was not feasible to use formal land surveying methods to layout farms. In view of their belief that unoccupied land abounded in the Transvaal and their apparent perception of what constituted a viable farm, one can understand why the original settlers were not overly concerned about exact measurements, provided that no-one else encroached on what dley regarded as their land. Even so, some form of control over land occupation was essential, both to limit conflict among the settlers and to provide the state with a source of revenue through the imposition of a land tax."
In terms of the system, the size of a farm was determined as an area that would take an hour on horseback to traverse completely (een uur gaans over kruis), a method which was conducive to inaccuracy and very open to abuse.
The 1853 ZAR Constitution set the standard farm at 3 000 morgen (≈ 2 568 ha). In 1875 it was adjusted to 3 750 morgen (≈ 3 210 ha) “which was the calculated area that the traverse should ideally produce.
This “hour-on-horseback” rule is the classic Boer republican land-grant method. It was copied from Natalia and prioritised quick occupation over precision - perfect for a frontier with low population and no professional surveyors.
Inspections
In the ZAR, land was granted not by survey but by riding. An inspection commission simply rode across the proposed farm for one hour in each direction from a central point.
Before 1886, almost all Witwatersrand farms started life as eigenaarsplaatsen (see freehold). This was the standard way Boers secured permanent title in the ZAR under the old inspection system.
"The ZAR Government accepted the desirability of a general survey of the country in 1882 and the survey began in the middle of 1885. Before this, a system of inspection by a commission was used to determine the geographical location and extent of the various farms... With the establishment of the ZAR as a centralised state the procedure for inspecting fanns was standardised and the surface area of a farm was specified in the Constitution (section 7) as 3 000 morgen (2 568 ha)."
The Witwatersrand, which fell partly in the Pretoria district and partly in Heidelberg, was relatively densely populated and well established since it was regarded as prime agricultural land. The first farm to be inspected in the Witwatersrand was Wilgespruit in 1841, and nearly all the major farms had been inspected by 1860.
Example: Doornfontein No. 323 (future eastern Johannesburg) was inspected in 1853 with riding times: North 16 min, West 15 min, South 30 min, East 45 min. When properly surveyed in 1886 it turned out to be 4 821 morgen - over 50% larger than allowed. It was served by one spring. Such “generous” inspections were the norm.
Disputes
To prevent endless boundary fights: “Farms should be separated by strips of state land (the uitvalgronde)... This decision accounts for the existence of a small triangle of state land situated between Doornfontein, Turffontein and Braamfontein which later became known as Randjeslaagte - the site chosen for the original township that became Johannesburg.” (Allen)
Gold Rush
Before the discovery of gold, a severe lack of infrastructure limited the export of farm produce, which lead to mostly subsistence farming and barter. Alternative occupations included transport riding, hunting and wood-cutting.
Coal was discovered, but there was no market for it. Lead was mined with limited success. Even so, mining in general forced the ZAR government to consider for the first time the issues of who owned the minerals and who had the right to exploit them.
The 1871 discovery of gold at Eersteling near Pietersburg, necessitated the ZAR to invent new laws:
- Law No. 1 of 1871: Minerals belonged to the landowner, but the state had the sole right to exploit them.
- Law No. 1 of 1883: attempted to add actual ownership of the minerals occurring within its boundaries to the State's existing right to control their exploitation.
- Law No. 8 of 1885 (amended in 1886): reintroduced the system of proclamation and owner's rights. It also introduced a new mechanism which simultaneously increased land owners' compensation and encouraged large-scale mining operations. No exploitation, whether mining, panning or digging, of gold was permitted on land before it had been officially proclaimed. This measure, which became central to the whole Witwatersrand mining industry and played a decisive role in property transactions on e.g. Doornfontein, was the "mynpacht" (mijnpachbrief).
* The proclamation of private land and ensuing allocation of claims seriously infringed the owner's rights of ownership of the minerals and utilization of the surface area concerned. Proclamation was regarded as a temporary suspension of owner's rights rather than an outright expropriation of land. Deproclamation automatically cancelled all mining rights and full control of the land reverted to its owner.
Mynpacht
In the ZAR, once gold was discovered and a farm was proclaimed as a public goldfield, the owner did not automatically get to dig the gold himself. Instead, the law (Gold Law No. 8 of 1885) gave the farm owner the right to apply for a mynpacht - a special mining title. It covered roughly 10% of the proclaimed portion of the farm. It gave the holder the exclusive right to mine that section for many years (initially 5 years, renewable). It did NOT transfer ownership of the land or the gold itself - just the right to dig and sell the gold.
The farm owner could then lease or sub-divide that mining right to big companies and collect rent for decades without selling the farm itself. He earned immediate income while still keeping legal ownership of the land. The farm owner could add a buy-back clause for when the gold ran out, so the he could potentially get the land back.
The low cost of mynpachten made them much sought after and valuable properties, especially since they could re subdivided, leased and sold in their own right.
Bewaarplaatsen
Bewaarplaatsen (places of storage) were a specific class of mining-related assets from the former ZAR that passed to British control after the annexation at the end of the Second Boer War.
The 30x30m portions of land were originally granted by the old Boer government to mining companies for practical purposes: depositing tailings (waste), building batteries/stamp mills, conserving water, and erecting other surface works. They carried only surface rights; the valuable mining rights underneath were reserved by the state. This prohibition on mining under the bewaarplaatsen remained in force right up to the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War in 1899.¹⁰
"They were almost invariably situated on the south side of the Witwatersrand Main Reef, for the reason that, as the ground sloped to the south, the water was found there, the mills would naturally be erected there, and the inclination of the ground offered tempting facilities for the disposal of residues."¹²
Many were originally low-value claims far from the outcrop (surface exposure of the gold reef) that companies converted to cheaper bewaarplaatsen licences. When deep-level mining proved that the gold reefs flattened out and continued far south, these “worthless” surface sites suddenly sat directly above payable ore. The companies that owned the surface argued they had created this value through their own exploration and development.¹² The government had blocked full mining title to prevent easy transfer.⁹
Mining companies had tried years earlier to convert the bewaarplaatsen into full mining claims (when the ground was still cheap), but the law had an oversight that prevented it. The issue was fought over in the Volksraad year after year while the ground grew enormously valuable.¹² The fight for mining rights lasted until 1917.¹¹
The bewaarplaatsen system was not limited to mining companies. It was a general, cheap licensing mechanism the Transvaal government used for various surface industrial activities. Brickmakers received a 60x60m portion of land for brick-making and drying ovens, and 15x15m for a dwelling house (rent-free but temporary). Both were purely surface rights only. The government kept full control underneath and could cancel the licence at any time without compensation.¹⁰
Sources
- Bewaarders van on erfenis. Roux, J.G. 2002. Drakenstein Heemkring.
- Report on the Farm Matjesfontein in the Bokkeveld, VASSA, 2004.
- Building in stone in the Karoo. Maguire, J. VASSA, June 2008.
- Doornboom. Pretorius, A. VASSA, Dec 2004.
- Crown Land Disposal in the Cape of Good Hope 1853-1914. Cristopher, A.J. n.d.
- History of South Africa from 1873-1884. Theal, G. 1919.
- Nuus van uit de Oude Woning. Claassen, J. Dec 2014. Drakenstein Heemkring. p9.
- F. J. Bezuidenhout's Doornfontein: A case study in white farmland alienation on the 19th century Witwatersrand. 1994. Allen, G.R. Contree 94.
- The Fortnightly Review: The Value of Rand Bewaarplaatsen. 1903. Courtney, W.L.
- Die Geskienenis van die Afrikaners in Johannesburg. 1976. Fourie, J.J. (thesis)
- Leengoed: Gedagtes oor Taal, Volksgeloof, Kultuur. 1939. Coetzee, A.
- The Transvaal from within. 1899. Fitzpatrick, J.P.
Comments
Post a Comment