LORD LOVATMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing on the Paper in my name—viz.: what are the conditions under which settlers under existing Settlers' Ordinances hold land (a) in the Transvaal; (b) in the Orange River Colony.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, this Question is in its form a simple question because the information asked for is really at the disposal of the public; but I imagine that what the noble Earl desires me to do is to say something in general about the position of the settlers in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony. The system of settlement was established in both colonies on a similar basis in the year 1902. The arrangements were these. If land was offered on lease, it was let for five years at a rent which did not exceed five per cent. of its estimated value. In the Transvaal that lease might be extended for a further period of two years, and in the Orange River Colony for a further period of five or ten years. On the other hand, a licence might be taken out to purchase the land. In that case the settler purchased by sixty half-yearly payments extending over thirty years, paying four per cent. interest and 1¾ instalment of the capital sum.
In the Transvaal in 1907 a change was made, and the amendment gave two advantages to the settler. It enabled him, in the first place, to convert the terms under which he held on licence to the terms of a lease, and it gave him a chance of having his farm revalued. In the Transvaal the practice had been to charge under a lease of five years one and a quarter per cent. for the first two years, and two and a half per cent, for the last three years. Your Lordships will see that under a lease the settler paid considerably less than he paid 899 under a licence. In 1907 legislation in the Transvaal made leases renewable for five years more, and it gave the lessee the right to obtain a full Crown grant any time on paying the full value of the holding. It also enabled him, if he chose still to hold under licence, to spread his payments over fifty years instead of thirty. The practical result of that was that by far the greater part of the Transvaal settlers elected to take leases. But it is important to know that that choice cannot be exercised as a right; it can only be exercised under the authority of the Minister of Lands.
In 1907 there was also some amending legislation in the Orange River Colony. The purchaser, instead of going on paying 5¾ per cent. all through, was allowed to pay at the rate of 4 per cent. for the rest of his thirty years, and to pay off the balance of the instalments of his capital as he might find it convenient during the period. In the Orange River Colony I believe that practically all the land—certainly the greatest part of it—is held on the purchase system. It is the desire there to acquire the land outright. Settlers there are now in a position to acquire their holdings after five years by paying down the remainder of the purchase money, whereas in the Transvaal the holdings cannot be acquired under ten years residence.
There is this important difference between the positions in the two colonies. In the Transvaal revaluation was provided for, but it had not been provided for in the Orange River Colony. Under the 1902 Ordinance of the Transvaal, a leaseholder desiring to purchase could ask for a revaluation if he thought the price was too high; but, as a matter of fact, the Commissioner or the Minister of Lands was not bound to carry out this revaluation. He might, if he liked, offer the holding to another applicant at the original price. Then in 1907 further powers of revaluation were given, and the Board might, with the consent of the Minister, grant revaluation on the application of any settlers. As a matter of fact, that was very largely done in the Tranvaal by general agreement, with the result that, speaking generally, no question arises as regards the settlers in the Transvaal. I do not think I need describe the provisions by which the settlers are tied, although in some ways they are onerous. It is only fair to mention that they exist in order to show that these 900 settlers do not stand exactly in the position of ordinary farmers. They are bound to reside for a very large part of the year—in the one case I think they may be absent only three months, and in the other four months—upon their holdings, and they have no mineral rights.
As to the present position of the settlers in the Orange River Colony, some difference of opinion has been expressed as to the proper method of dealing with the difficulties under which some of them at any rate have laboured. As your Lordships know, they are under the administration of a Land Board. I ought, perhaps, to make it clear that the position of His Majesty's Government in this matter is not one where any direct interference is possible. By the Letters Patent the care of the settlers is handed over partly to the Governor and partly to the Land Board, and so far it is out of our hands altogether. But, of course, that does not preclude us from doing what we desire to do—to take a friendly interest in their fortunes. They were placed there under special circumstances which are well known to your Lordships, and, therefore, as far as we are able in any way to advance their interests, of course we are glad to do so.
I am bound to say that the question of the position of these settlers is one of the most puzzling that has come before me during my tenure of my present office. One suggestion that has been made is that the complete Transvaal terms might be applied, of course by agreement with the Orange River Government, to settlers there. But I think if those terms were applied in their entirety they would not, for more reasons than one, be acceptable to the whole of the Orange River settlers. That is one suggestion. Then we have to consider what the policy of the Land Board has been. It is not, as I understand it, the opinion of the Land Board that the settlers as a whole desire revaluation. The policy of the Land Board hitherto when times have been hard, as they have, has been to remit rents. In a considerable number of cases they have from the funds at their disposal allowed a three years free occupation of the holding in the hope that that might enable the settlers to pull round. Lately—and I think the noble Lord will confirm what I say if he speaks—the prospects of at any rate a very large number of the settlers have been distinctly bettered. They have had better times and are altogether 901 in better heart. I am also quite certain that the noble Lord will agree that it is bad policy, that it is no kindness to anybody and an altogether thoroughly disadvantageous thing to do, to attempt to bolster up any who may be incompetent by assistance from public funds.
The real question is what prospect is there of a large body of these people being able to get on their feet before the Land Board comes to an end in 1912, with the prospect of their coming, as they will, under the Union Government and being able, in due course, to become purchasers of their holdings. I should hope, as far as regards a very considerable number of them, that that happy consummation would follow without anything further being done. But it is no doubt a question whether the funds at the disposal of the Land Board are sufficient to enable them to carry out improvements and make remissions. I have had various friendly communications on this subject with those who are entitled to speak for the Orange River Colony, and I hope to have more; but whether it will be possible to find from any source any further funds, should such funds be needed, I am not in a position now to say. I believe that the sum required to make the position of all those settlers who are in a tolerably sound position really secure would not be a large one, and I am sorry I am not able to give my noble friend any definite figure on that point. I hope, however, that later in the session, if he raises the subject again, I may be able to tell him something more definite. I can assure him that the subject, as I have said, is one of the most puzzling I have had to do with; it has my constant attention, and as far as it is possible for me to suggest any remedy I certainly will do my best to do so.
LORD LOVATI desire to thank the noble Earl for his sympathetic interest in the cause of the settlers, but I think it has come out pretty clearly from what he has said that although the settlement of the question has been going on now for three years there does not appear any immediate prospect of anything being done, and that at the present moment His Majesty's Government do not seem to have any plan. On the one side, which I will call for the moment the Dutch side, people have pretty definite clear-cut ideas of what they want, while on this side, the Imperial side, no opinions have held water for more 902 than a day at a time. The Ridgeway Commission went out with a definite promise from the Government that they were going to inquire into the whole of the settler problem. What happened? The settlers met the Commission out there and sent in certain statements. The Ridgeway Commission returned to this country and the subject was afterwards debated at some length in your Lordships' House, but we failed to extract a single fact regarding the settlers, and we now know that the portion of the Ridgeway Report devoted to the subject of the settlers was embraced in about six lines.
We were told at the time the Orange River Colony settlements were made that the settlers were going to be looked after. We now hear from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that there are no funds. We stated that fact on this side of the House three years ago. Then there was another attempt made, at the time of the £4,000,000 loan, to redress this real grievance. Lord Selborne stated that the Home Government had a distinct duty to perform to these settlers, and it was his wish to take a certain portion of that money for redressing their just grievances. But not a fraction of that £4,000,000 loan went into the settlers' pockets. Six months ago a deputation of settlers from the Orange River Colony came over here to get some redress of their grievances. They were listened to sympathetically, but nothing has been done, and I believe nothing will be done for these settlers.
There are certain definite things the settlers want. In the Transvaal, as the noble Earl stated, they are allowed to have their farms for two years at one and a-quarter per cent. of the purchase price and for a further three years at two and a-half per cent. In the Orange River Colony they have to pay four per cent. of the purchase price on their farms. The settlers in the Orange River Colony wish to have the rate of interest on their land reduced to the same figure as is paid in the Transvaal. In 1912 they know they will be handed over to the tender mercies of another Government, and they wish to be thoroughly settled on the land before the transfer. I think a more reasonable request could hardly be put forward; moreover, when these terms are granted in the Transvaal it is only fair that the settlers in the Orange 903 River Colony should get them also. Then there is the question of revaluation. After the war farms were transferred at inflated prices. Land has since gone down in value, and the settlers wish to have a revaluation.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEDoes the noble Lord ask for a revaluation in the name of the settlers on all the farms in the Orange River Colony?
LORD LOVATI do not ask for revaluation where a definite deal has been made. I think where there has been a definite bargain they would not like revaluation. Those cases are very few compared to the total number of farms. The farms were very much overvalued. The next point is the question of the revision of the Ordinance. The Ordinance lays down that the settlers can only leave their farms for three months. It would be rather ludicrous when a man had paid two-thirds of the purchase price of his farm that he should be turned out because he had left his farm for more than three months. Equally unsound it must be that the Governor in Council is empowered to readjust terms. There are other points which require that the whole of the Land Settlement Ordinance for the Orange River Colony should be gone into and revised. The other point I wish to bring out is this, Who is going to pay for this? At present the Land Settlement Board in the Orange River Colony has only about £40,000 a year to spend on necessary works and to carry on the administration. If the rate of interest is reduced from four per cent. to one and a-half per cent. they will be left with between £15,000 and £25,000 to carry on the administration, and therefore it would be necessary that some money should be forthcoming to make up the difference between that amount and the £40,000.
The Ministerial organ of the Orange River Colony, the Bloemfontein Friend, stated recently that the whole policy of land settlement was not one they particularly cared for; they saw no reason Why the Orange River Colony should pay this money, and they looked to His Majesty's Government to make up the difference. The article concluded by saying—
The Old population may say, Is it our duty to save the settlers from their self-preferred Land 904 Board and the contracts they have voluntarily signed? If we do nothing, in a short time the few settlers will have left. Shall we not be satisfied, after they have left, in placing our own people upon the land on such terms as we please?That shows the definite policy which these people have. I wish we could say that our Government had anything like so definite a policy. I shall bring the matter up again at a later period of the session, when my Question will take the form of asking exactly what His Majesty's Government intend to do. A very large proportion of the settlers will certainly stick it out if they can possibly do so. I agree that there can be no object in keeping bad men on the land; but the settlers who served us through the war and have since worked through five bad seasons ought to have something done for them.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI was so much interested in the noble Lord's statement that I did not point out that he was not in order. He should have made his speech in asking the Question and not by way of reply, as he did not conclude with any formal Motion. There is one point I wish to make clear. The funds of the Land Board have been largely used in the direction of trying to make the valuations more uniform by spending, free of charge to the tenant, large sums of money in sinking wells and otherwise improving the farms which were considered to be too highly valued in order to bring their value up to the nominal valuations. I think it only fair to mention that.