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, surpassing 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 passed 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.