Part 23 (1/2)

A. BRAKHAN The foregoing embodies our views as well as that of our London houses.

(Signed) J.G. HAMILTON.

W. DALRYMPLE.

The following memorandum-the one referred to in the above letter-was prepared by well-known Uitlanders whom the Government, owing to the refusal of the capitalists to deal with the franchise, had been obliged to select in order to get some p.r.o.nouncement upon that question. The little ironies of life have two properties: the humour for the winner, and the hurt for the worsted. The Uitlanders had for three years enjoyed a singularly monotonous experience in ironies, but a turning came in the long lane when it became necessary for the President to suspend the operation of his three years' ban on two of the Reformers in order to get their advice upon the franchise question.

JOHANNESBURG, S.A.R., 24th March, 1899.

GENTLEMEN, In response to the invitation from the Government of the South African Republic conveyed to us by Mr. E. Lippert, we beg to submit the enclosed memorandum upon the franchise question.

Yours faithfully, J. PERCY FITZPATRICK.

H.C. HULL.

W. DALRYMPLE.

W.A. MARTIN.

THOS. MACKENZIE.

R. STORE.

J.G. HAMILTON.

T.J. BRITTEN.

H.R. SKINNER.

To Messrs. G. Rouliot, E. Birkenruth, A. Brakhan, J.M. Pierce, H.F.E. Pistorius Johannesburg.

MEMORANDUM RE FRANCHISE.

After such investigation as the restrictions imposed have permitted, we are of opinion that it would be quite useless to approach the Uitlander population with the Government proposal in its present form, chiefly for the following reasons:-

1. No consideration is given to the term of residence already completed.

2. The alteration of the franchise law according to lately prescribed procedure, whereby two-thirds of the burghers must signify approval, is a practical impossibility,-witness the fact that at the last Presidential election, surpa.s.sing in excitement and interest all other occasions of general voting, with the three recognized leaders in the field, and every agency at work to stimulate activity, less than two-thirds of the burghers on the register recorded their votes.

3. The present form of oath would be regarded as humiliating and unnecessary, in support of which view we instance that quite recently the Volksraad of the Orange Free State rejected upon the same grounds the proposed introduction of the same oath of allegiance.

4. The period of disqualification, during which the Uitlander would have given up his own citizens.h.i.+p by naturalizing and have acquired nothing in return, would be found most objectionable-especially with the experience that rights have in the past been legislated away as they were on the point of maturing.

5. In view of the unique conditions of this country, extension of the franchise without some approach to equitable redistribution of representatives would be regarded as no solution of the question and might even provoke doubts as to the bona fides of the proposal, which would be a deplorable beginning, yet one easily to be avoided.

Regard being had to the points raised in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, we consider that as restrictive franchise legislation, apparently designed to exclude for ever the great bulk of the Uitlander population, dates its beginning from the Session of 1890, and as the various enactments bearing upon this question have been pa.s.sed by successive Volksraads exercising their power to alter, add to, or revoke, previous enactments, and as the same powers are to the full enjoyed by the present Volksraad, it would be both possible and proper for the present Volksraad to annul all the legislation upon this subject from that date, and to restore and confirm the status prior to 1890, and thus satisfy the indisputable claims of those who settled in this country under certain conditions from the benefits of which they could not properly be excluded.

With regard to paragraph 5, a moderate proposal designed to give a more equitable distribution of representatives in the Volksraad would be necessary.

The above suggestions are not put forward as the irreducible minimum, nor are they designed for public use, nor intended as a proposal acceptable to the eye but impossible in fact, and thus sure of rejection. They are put forward in good faith as indicating in our opinion the lines upon which it would be possible to work towards a settlement with a reasonable prospect of success.

If the difficulties appear great the more reason there is not to put forward an unalterable proposal foredoomed to failure, but rather to try and find points of agreement which, however few and small to begin with, would surely make for eventual and complete settlement. In any case it is clear that the mere fact of a proposal to extend the franchise having been made by the Government, thus frankly recognizing the need to deal with the subject, will be hailed as a good omen and a good beginning by all fair-minded men.

The determination of the negotiators to have the position clearly stated in writing, and their fear that the use of intermediaries would end in the usual unhappy and unpleasant result-namely, repudiation of the intermediary in part or entirely-were not long wanting justification. The following is a translation of Mr. F.W. Reitz's reply:-

PRETORIA, 8th April, 1899.

Messrs. G. Rouliot, H.F.E. Pistorius, A. Brakhan, E. Birkenruth, and John M. Pierce, Johannesburg.