when read and construed in connection with each other. It would be an error to commit Colonies to a land policy they resented, with reasonable anticipation that the path would be strewn with opposition and that the ultimate aim might be wrecked. Moreover, in the contest for supremacy of view, the cause of aboriginal development would suffer from the lack of sustained sympathy and support, which are its main buttresses.
There have not been wanting eager reformers, who have watched the trend of native development and advocated changes for betterment in the form of land tenure. The Cape Colonial Government, under the inspiration of Mr. Rhodes, carried out a scheme under which a certain territory, held under communal tenure, should be converted into individual holdings. Reasonable conditions were imposed, subject to which freehold rights were conferred entitling the individual to the free and permanent use of allotments. The general idea of the scheme was that it would tend to infuse into the freeholders a spirit of self-dependence and enterprise to which communal tenure does not lend itself. Some of the objects aimed at have been gained, but the masses have not displayed enthusiasm enough for the change to justify its extension on any large scale.
There is no space in this paper to treat of all the ramifications of the land questions, which affect each Colony so differently. The advantages and disadvantages of communal or individual tenure, of squatting, vesting in trust, etc., are fully argued in the report of the Commission. They are all matters of supreme importance to the different Colonies, and are engaging attention. What is clear is that there is complete disillusionment of the idea that land will any longer be meted out for tribal occupation under the old system of free grants. That is the universal opinion of the South African Colonies, and is the kernel of the question, signifying as it does a sweeping change in the entire land system. It is the parting of the ways. What has been granted or pledged
