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 citizenship 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.

DEAR SIRS, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 27th March last, referring to certain proposals to the Government from representatives of the mining industry.

In order to understand the natural position it is necessary to state the facts more extensively than given in your letter.

It is wrong to say, as you do in the first paragraph of your communication, that Mr. Lippert came to you with certain proposals from the Government.

It appears also from the second paragraph of the same that Mr. Lippert came to you suo motu with the object, as he informed me afterwards, to see 'if it was not possible to obtain a better understanding between the Government on the one side and the mining industry on the other.' He acted in no wise as the agent of the Government, or in the name of the Government, to make any proposals to you, but only as a friendly mediator to see how far unnecessary differences and misunderstandings could be removed.

When Mr. Lippert came to Dr. Leyds and myself, and informed us that you and other gentlemen were agreeable to his mediation, we at once agreed with his plan, being aware that there was a warm desire and continued struggle on the part of this Government to remove out of the way all friction and trouble, and that in this case especially it was our object to leave no stone unturned to get all differences settled. We were the more anxious to meet you, because his Honour the State President had decided to lay before the Volksraad certain proposals of law, which are of great importance not only for the people of the Republic, but especially for the mining population and industry. We gave Mr. Lippert to understand that should the leaders of the mining industry have no objection to his mediation, we would not be unwilling to make use of his good services in this matter.

Mr. Lippert then went to Johannesburg, and returned to us with the a.s.surance that there was no objection to his acting as mediator, and gave us some of the subjects on which it appeared to him that it was possible to arrive at a friendly understanding.

In consequence of this, and acting on our own initiative, and not as representatives of the Government, Dr. Leyds, Mr. s.m.u.ts, and myself, met some of your leading men, as set forth in your letter.

At this meeting we informed you of the intention of the President to alter certain laws for the general good. Only with reference to the franchise we gave you no definite proposal, the matter being then still under consideration. From your side we requested only a more friendly att.i.tude from the Press, as we were convinced that the excessive Press campaign carried on by the newspapers, which are generally considered to be owned by you, or influenced by you, however much they may forward certain interests, still, in the end, did infinite harm to the existing interests of all sections of the population. Through the continual and incessant agitation and creation of suspicion on the part of the papers, the public mind was constantly in a state of insecurity, and the fanning of the race hatred made it impossible for the Government as well as the legislature to improve the relations between the so-called Uitlanders and the old population.

We requested your friendly a.s.sistance also in the settlement of the coolie question, not because we wanted to cause friction between you and other foreign governments, but only because the policy which refers to the native and coloured questions is of the utmost importance to South Africa.

Mr. Lippert had in his programme the granting of a promise on your side that you would support the Government in the obtaining of a loan which the Government may deem necessary, and that you should bind yourselves in writing to abstain from all political organizations inimical to the Government.

These matters we did not discuss, as we considered them unnecessary and inadvisable. From your side you deemed it necessary, before answering us, first to receive the instructions of your foreign princ.i.p.als. Before you could give us the result the President explained his intentions at Heidelberg, and afterwards at Rustenburg and Johannesburg.

Your letter, now under consideration, contains practically a definite answer to our communication to you. I shall now consider the points of your answer separately.

BEWAARPLAATSEN.

With reference to this matter, we think that the undermining rights under bewaarplaatsen, machine stands, and water-rights should be valued on a reasonable basis, independently by the Government, and by the owner of the surface rights (should there be a difference which cannot be settled amicably, then the value can be fixed by arbitration), and that the surface owner shall have the preferent right to purchase the affected under-mining right at such a valuation. From your communication I understand that you suggest a special method of valuation. That is a detail which can be settled when the valuation is actually commenced, and which experts are better able to judge over than I am. Therefore I shall say no more on this subject.

FINANCIER AND AUDITOR.

On this subject our opinion was that the auditor should be independent of the Government, and alone responsible to the Volksraad to appoint as financier a man of standing, with a seat in the Executive Council, to advise on all matters affecting finances.

I am glad to see that you are with us, and that it gives you great satisfaction. I must express my surprise, however, over your proposal that previous to the appointment this Government must first get the approval of Lord Rothschild or any other capitalist. I can only answer that it is in no wise the intention of the Government to frame the future financial policy of this State on a capitalistic basis, and thus your request cannot be agreed to. It is quite possible to make such an appointment which will carry general approval without being subjected to such a mutual condition.

LOAN, PRESS AGITATION, POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

With reference to these matters, I have already made it plain to you that in following the proposals of Mr. Lippert by cabling to your princ.i.p.als, you acted under a misunderstanding. We requested no binding declaration from you, only a moral understanding, which would be easy for you to maintain, if it was in the interests of the Uitlanders as well as the burghers of the Republic. I regret that the mistake has arisen, otherwise I cannot see that any objection can come from your side to approve of the plans of the President.

DYNAMITE.

On this question there is a small difference between the proposed policy of the President and your answer.

I only wish to add that his Honour goes further than you do, as he has declared his readiness to expropriate the Dynamite Company, under agreement with its representatives, as soon as possible. If the expropriation takes place after the expiration of the present concession then it will naturally not be on the basis of a going concern.

FRANCHISE.

On this subject I can well understand that you do not wish to take upon your shoulders the responsibility of speaking and acting for the whole of the new population. It was more your personal opinions as men of position that we wished to know. Then again, according to your a.s.surance at the aforementioned meeting, you do not take any personal interest in the franchise question, and that you would rather leave the question to the public; your answer is therefore perfectly fair. His Honour has therefore already acted in accordance with your idea, for he has brought the question of the franchise very prominently before the public, not only at Heidelberg and Rustenburg, but also at Johannesburg.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to one matter which has caused me much pain. It was clearly and distinctly agreed and understood by you all as well as by us that both sides would treat this matter as confidential and secret, as discussions of such important matters cannot be carried on with any results on the tops of houses. What has happened? On the 28th of March I received your letter, and on the 3rd of April, whilst I was yet giving it earnest consideration and had taken all the measures to keep it secret, the contents of the same appeared in the London Times, while some days later your answer appeared in full in the Cape Times, the Diamond Fields Advertiser, and other papers under the influence of the capitalists. The manner in which these papers favourable to you, or controlled by you, have dealt with me in this matter has caused me (I admit it with regret) to doubt for one moment your good faith. Thinking, however, of the great interest as it were in the balance, and believing, moreover, that you never for private or party purposes intended to play with the true and lasting interests of all sections of the community, I cannot help thinking that the reply has been published through one of your subordinates, and regret that the publication has not been immediately repudiated by you publicly as a grave breach of faith. I would regret it, while there exists so few points of difference between us, that these things should bar the way through careless and wrong tactics to a permanent understanding, and trust that the hand extended to the Industry in absolute good faith will not be slighted purposely and wilfully. Owing to the publication of your reply, there exists no further reason for secrecy, and I shall hand my reply to the press.

Your obedient servant, F.W. REITZ, State Secretary.

The repudiation of Mr. Lippert's "official" character; the contention that the State Secretary, State Attorney, and Dr. Leyds could divest themselves of all responsibility in negotiations such as these, and claim to have been acting in their private capacity only; and the extraordinary anxiety to keep secret matters which deeply affected the public, and to the settlement of which the Government designed that the public should be committed, compelled the negotiators to produce evidence that the statements and conclusions of the Government were not warranted by the facts. The following letter, which was formally acknowledged but never answered, practically concluded the negotiations:-

JOHANNESBURG, S.A.R., April 14, 1899.