1894.
FIRST RAAD.

_May 14_.--A debate took place upon the clause that members should
appear in the House clad in broadcloth and having white neckties.

Mr. JAN DE BEER complained of the lack of uniformity in neckties.
Some wore a Tom Thumb variety, and others wore scarves. This was a
state of things to be deplored, and he considered that the Raad
should put its foot down and define the size and shape of neckties.

JAM CONCESSION.

_August 28_.--The PRESIDENT said he was against concessions generally
speaking, but there were cases where exceptions should be made. There
was for instance the Jam Concession. The manufacture of jam ought to
be protected.

REDUCTION OF POSTAGE FROM TWOPENCE TO ONE PENNY THROUGHOUT THE
REPUBLIC.

_August 22_.--Mr. WOLMARANS opposed the reduction, saying the Postal
Department would probably show a deficit at the end of the year. And
besides who would benefit? Certainly not the farmers.

Mr. LOMBAARD also was against the reduction.

Mr. DE LA REY said speculators could afford to pay the present rates
of postage, and as the reduction would only benefit the townspeople,
let matters remain unaltered. If he resided in a town and speculated
he would be able to pay twopence.

Mr. SCHUTTE said the Postal Department was run at a loss at present,
and if they further reduced the tariff things would go very badly
with them.

Reduction rejected, 13 to 9.

INCREASE OF REPRESENTATION.

_September 6_.--The PRESIDENT throughout the debate maintained that
there was no advantage to be gained by increased representation, and
that business could be more quickly transacted with a small number of
members. He disagreed with those members who wished to give big towns
representatives as the Raad would be swamped with town members.

After the rejection of various proposals the PRESIDENT rose and
pointed out it would mean ruination to the country if the Raad
resolved to increase the number of the members, and amidst some
confusion he left, declining to occupy the Presidential chair,
muttering that the Raad was large enough already and if it were
increased it would be a shame.

EDUCATION QUESTION.

_September 7_.--The Committee reported that a number of memorials had
been received, praying that more hours weekly should be devoted to
the English language. Counter memorials had also been received. The
Committee advised the Raad not to grant the request of more hours for
English.

Mr. LOMBAARD thought the Raad was bound to refuse the request, and it
would be useless to discuss the matter.

Mr. DE BEER could see no harm in granting the request, in fact it was
their duty to do so.

Mr. SPIES considered there was no necessity to teach English in the
State. Trade did not require it, and they could get on very well
without English. Let the English remain in their own country.

The PRESIDENT was opposed to extending the hours. He did not object
to English being taught, but then it must not interfere with the
language of the country to the prejudice of the latter language. He
had schools upon his farm, and parents objected to their children
being taught English in those schools. After a very little while they
could write English as well as or better than their own language, and
neglected Dutch for English. _The Dutch language could not be
maintained against English in competition._

Mr. WOLMARANS also spoke against the English language saying that if
they went through the list of those who had signed the memorial for
the annexation of the Transvaal by the English, they would find
without exception that those who signed were English-speaking.
He was against children being taught English so early, as when they
were taught young their minds became poisoned with English views.

Mr. OTTO agreed with the spirit of the Committee's report. This was a
Dutch country, with Dutch laws, and why should they be asked to
exchange the Dutch language for the English? What had the English
done for the country that this should be asked?

The CHAIRMAN thought many members made too much of the English
language already. One language was sufficient, and if a man was
properly educated in his own tongue that should suffice.

Mr. LE CLERQ and Mr. PRINSLOO both cautioned the Raad against foreign
languages in their schools.

Mr. LOVEDAY pointed out the absurdity of saying that the National
Independence depended upon one language only being used, and pointed
to the American and Swiss Republics as examples.

Mr. LOMBAARD in the course of a violent speech said those people who
wanted English taught in the State-aided schools were aiming at the
independence of the State. They wanted to bring dissension in the
midst of the burghers by teaching new and wrong ideas, and they
became indignant because the burghers would not allow it. He was
ashamed that members should argue in favour of injuring their
independence: English should not be taught in the State-aided
schools.

The law remained unaltered by 12 to 10.

1895.

_July 26_.--The matter of purchasing diamond drills cropping up, the
PRESIDENT said it was true that the two industries mining and
agriculture went hand in hand, but it must be remembered that every
fresh goldfield opened meant a fresh stream of people and extra
expenses. He hoped the Raad would excuse him referring to it, but the
Raad took away the revenue and still asked for money. There was the
reduction of postage; now it was asked to spend money on boring
machines, when each new field meant so much extra expense. Machines
for water boring were cheap and not fitted with diamonds like those
for mining, which required to be handled by experts. It must be
remembered that money voted for agricultural purposes was spent here,
while for the gold industry it was sent away. The Raad must be
careful how the money was voted.

FIRST RAAD.

FIRING AT THE CLOUDS TO BRING DOWN RAIN CONSIDERED IMPIOUS.

_August 5_.--A memorial was read from Krugersdorp praying that the
Raad would pass a law to prohibit the sending up of bombs into the
clouds to bring down rain, as it was a defiance of God and would most
likely bring down a visitation from the Almighty.

The Memorial Committee reported that they disapproved of such a
thing, but at the same time they did not consider they could make a
law on the subject.

Mr. A.D. WOLMARANS said he was astonished at this advice, and he
expected better from the Commission. If one of their children fired
towards the clouds with a revolver they would thrash him. Why should
they permit people to mock at the Almighty in this manner? It was
terrible to contemplate. He hoped that the Raad would take steps to
prevent such things happening.

The CHAIRMAN (who is also a member of the Memorial Commission) said
the Commission thought that such things were only done for a wager.

Mr. ERASMUS said they were not done for a wager but in real earnest.
People at Johannesburg actually thought that they could bring down
the rain from the clouds by firing cannons at them.

Mr. JAN MEYER said such things were actually done in Johannesburg.
Last year during the drought men were engaged to send charges of
dynamite into the clouds. They fired from the Wanderers' Ground and
from elsewhere, but without result. Then some one went to Germiston
and fired at a passing cloud; but there was no rain. The cloud sailed
away, and the heavens became clear and beautifully blue. He had
reported the matter to the Government.

Mr. DU TOIT (Carolina) said he had heard that there were companies in
Europe which employed numbers of men to do nothing but shoot at the
clouds simply to bring down rain. It was wonderful that men could
think of doing such things; they ought to be prohibited here. He did
not consider that the Raad would be justified in passing a law on the
subject, however; but he thought all the same that they should
express their strongest disapproval of such practices.

Mr. BIRKENSTOCK ridiculed the idea of people forcing rain from the
clouds. In some of the Kaffir countries they had witch-doctors who
tried to bring down rain; whether they succeeded or not was a
different matter. Still, if people were foolish enough to try and
force the clouds to discharge rain, the Legislature ought not to
interfere to prevent them. He did not agree with the idea of firing
at the clouds, but did not consider that an Act should be passed to
prevent it.

The CHAIRMAN said if such things were actually done--and he was
unaware of it--those who did it ought to be prevented from repeating
it.

After a further discussion, Mr. A.D. WOLMARANS moved: 'That this
Raad, considering the memorial now on the Order, resolves to agree
with the same, and instructs the Government to take the necessary
steps to prevent a repetition of the occurrences referred to.'

SECOND RAAD.

BARMAIDS.

The article for the abolition of barmaids was dealt with.

Mr. WATKINS declared himself strongly against such an article. He
could not see why females should be prevented from dispensing liquor.
Such a clause would prevent many respectable young women from making
a living.

Mr. PRETORIUS said there were many memorials on this subject, and in
compliance with the wish expressed therein the article was inserted
in the Liquor Law. Of course, it was for the Raad to decide.

Mr. RENSBURG spoke strongly against the clause. According to it the
proprietor's wife would be prevented from going behind the counter.
He would not deny that there were some barmaids who were not strictly
virtuous, but to accuse them as a class of being dangerous was
going too far. Many of the memorials were signed by women. These
memorials were drawn by men whom he considered were hypocrites, and
they ought to be ashamed of themselves for their narrow-mindedness.

Mr. VAN STADEN said he did not like to take the bread out of the
mouths of a great many women.

Mr. KOENIG suggested that they could become chambermaids.




APPENDIX E.

MALABOCH.


_September 4_.--An Executive resolution was read, stating that the
Executive had decided to deprive Malaboch of his rights of
chieftainship, and keep him in the custody of the Government, and
that his tribe be broken up and apprenticed out to burghers, each
burgher applying to have one or two families upon payment of £3 per
family per annum. The Executive wished the Raad to approve of this;
the Government had the right to do this according to law. This was
without prejudice to the trial before the High Court. Perhaps when
the Krijgsraad assembled it would be decided to try him before the
High Court on charges of murder and rebellion.

Mr. JEPPE thought this was a matter for the High Court, and
counselled the Raad to adopt that course, giving the chief a public
trial.

The PRESIDENT said the Executive acted strictly in accordance with
the law; it was not necessary for the Government to send the case to
the High Court, as it had the power to decide native cases. For
instance, in the case of Lo Bengula and his headmen, they were not
tried by any High Court.

Mr. MEYER thought they should give Malaboch a fair trial.

Finally Mr. MEYER moved, and Mr. JEPPE seconded, that Executive
resolution be accepted for notice.




APPENDIX F.

THE GREAT FRANCHISE DEBATE.


The following extract is made from the Report of the great Franchise
Debate, published in the Johannesburg _Star_, August 17, 1895:

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE.--MONSTER UITLANDER PETITIONS.--WHAT THE
BURGHERS WISH.

Petitions were read praying for the extension of the franchise. The
petitioners pointed out that they were all residents in the Republic,
that the increase of the wealth of the country and the status of the
country were due to their energy and wealth, that the number of the
non-enfranchised far exceeded the number of the burghers, that
taxation was so arranged that the non-enfranchised bore four-fifths
of the taxes. The memorialists pointed out that one of the Republican
principles was equality, but that notwithstanding the numerously
signed memorials the Raad decided last year to make the Franchise Law
so stringent that a new-comer could never obtain the franchise, and
his children could only obtain it under severe conditions. They
pointed out the danger of this, and prayed for admission under
reasonable conditions.

The petitions came from every part of the country, including all the
Boer strongholds, and some were signed by influential officials. One
petition from Johannesburg was signed by 32,479 persons, and the
total signatures amounted to 35,483.

Memorials to the same effect were read from a large number of farming
districts, signed by 993 full burghers, who were anxious that the
franchise should be extended to law-abiding citizens. These memorials
contained the names of prominent farmers. There were nineteen of
these last-named memorials, four of which came from different parts
of the Pretoria district and three from Potchefstroom.

A memorial was read from Lydenburg, suggesting that ten years'
residence in the country and obedience to the law be the
qualification. This was signed by about a hundred burghers.

A number of memorials were read from Rustenberg, Waterberg, Piet
Retief, Utrecht, Middelberg, Zoutpansberg, and Krugersdorp, signed by
about 500 burghers, stating that while they valued the friendship of
the peace-abiding Uitlanders they petitioned the Raad not to extend
the franchise or alter last year's law.

A memorial from Krugersdorp was to the effect that the franchise
should not be extended until absolutely necessary, and then only in
terms of Art. 4 of the Franchise Law of 1894. This was signed by
thirteen persons.

One was read from the Apies River and Standerton, praying that the
children of Uitlanders born here should not be granted the franchise.

Memorials from other places, with 523 signatures, prayed that the
existing Franchise Law should be strictly enforced.

Several petitions against the prohibition of the Election Committee
were read.

A further memorial from the Rand was read, containing 5,152
signatures, pointing out that they objected to the memorial issued by
the National Union, and they wanted the system of one-man-one-vote
and the ballot system adopted before they asked for the franchise.

THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Memorial Committee recommended that the law remain unaltered,
because the memorials signed by full burghers requested no extension
to take place.

Mr. LUCAS MEYER, who was chairman of the Memorial Commission,
submitted a report, stating that he was in the minority and differed
from his fellow-committeemen. There was not a single member of the
Raad who would use his powers more towards maintaining the
independence of the country than himself, but he was fully convinced
that the Raad had as bounden duty to propose an alteration to last
year's law. Proposals to do so had to emanate from the Raad. A large
majority of memorialists who prayed for the extension were not
burghers, but even those burghers who petitioned the Raad against the
extension asked the Raad not to do so at present. That showed that
they were convinced that sooner or later the extension would have to
take place--cautiously perhaps, but the extension would come. Even
the committee, the majority of whom were against him, recognised
this. He repeated that it was his opinion that the time would come.
Let the Raad then submit the proposal to the country, and if the
majority of the burghers were against it, the Raad would have to
stand or fall with the burghers; but at any rate they would be acting
according to the will of the country, and could not be blamed for
possible consequences. Recently the President said something had to
be done to admit a portion of the people who were behind the dam,
before the stream became so strong that the walls would be washed
away and the country immersed in water. He hoped the Raad would
favourably consider his proposal.

Mr. TOSEN said that when the proposals came to extend the franchise,
such proposals had to come from old burghers, and so far the old
burghers had not signified their willingness that this should be
done. On the contrary, a large number of them were against it. They
did not wish to exclude the new-comers for all eternity, but just now
they should make no concession. It stood to reason that the
new-comers could not have so much interest in the country as the old
inhabitants. He cautioned the Raad against accepting the
recommendations of Mr. Meyer. _It would be contrary to Republican
principles_. Yes, he repeated it would be contrary to the principles
of Republicanism, and were newcomers admitted to the franchise the
old burghers would be deprived of all their rights. They would not
dare to vote or exercise any of their privileges. Those persons who
signed the petition for the franchise said they were peaceful and
law-abiding citizens, _but they gave a sign that they were not
law-abiding, because they were against the law. The Election Law was
there, and they should abide by it._

The CHAIRMAN called the speaker to order and advised him to keep to
the point, whether it was desirable to extend the franchise or not.

Mr. TOSEN said he was cut short, but in a few words he would say that
he would resist to the bitter end any attempt to alter the law as it
at present stood. He spoke on behalf of his constituents and himself.

Mr. JEPPE, in the course of his speech, said: Who are the people who
now demand from us a reasonable extension of the franchise? There are
to begin with almost a thousand old burghers who consent to such
extension. There are in addition 890 petitioners, also old burghers,
who complain that the franchise has been narrowed by recent
legislation. There are 5,100, chiefly from the Rand, who ask for
extension subject to the ballot, the principle of which has already
been adopted by you, and there is lastly a monster petition, bearing
35,700 names, chiefly from the Rand goldfields: and in passing I may
mention that I have convinced myself that the signatures to it, with
very few exceptions perhaps are undoubtedly genuine. Well, this
petition has been practically signed by the entire population of the
Rand. There are not three hundred people of any standing whose names
do not appear there. It contains the name of the millionaire
capitalist on the same page as that of the carrier or miner, that of
the owner of half a district next to that of a clerk, and the
signature of the merchant who possesses stores in more than one town
of this Republic next to that of the official. It embraces also all
nationalities: the German merchant, the doctor from Capetown, the
English director, the teacher from the Paarl--they all have signed
it. So have--and that is significant--old burghers from the Free
State, whose fathers with yours reclaimed this country; and it bears
too the signatures of some who have been born in this country, who
know no other fatherland than this Republic, but whom the law regards
as strangers. Then too there are the newcomers. They have settled for
good: they have built Johannesburg, one of the wonders of the age,
now valued at many millions sterling, and which, in a few short
years, will contain from a hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand
souls; they own half the soil, they pay at least three-quarters of
the taxes. Nor are they persons who belong to a subservient race.
They come from countries where they freely exercised political rights
which can never be long denied to free-born men. They are, in short,
men who in capital, energy and education are at least our equals. All
these persons are gathered together, thanks to our law, into one
camp. Through our own act this multitude, which contains elements
which even the most suspicious amongst us would not hesitate to
trust, is compelled to stand together, and so to stand in this most
fatal of all questions in antagonism to us. Is that fact alone not
sufficient to warn us and to prove how unstatesmanlike our policy is?
What will we do with them now? Shall we convert them into friends or
shall we send them away empty, dissatisfied, embittered? What will
our answer be? Dare we refer them to the present law, which first
expects them to wait for fourteen years and even then pledges itself
to nothing, but leaves everything to a Volksraad which cannot decide
until 1905? It is a law which denies all political rights even to
their children born in this country. Can they gather any hope from
that? Is not the fate of the petition of Mr. Justice Morice, whose
request, however reasonable, could not be granted except by the
alteration of the law published for twelve months and consented to by
two-thirds of the entire burgher population, a convincing proof how
untenable is the position which we have assumed? Well, should we
resolve now to refuse this request, what will we do when as we well
know must happen it is repeated by two hundred thousand one day. You
will all admit the doors must be opened. What will become of us or
our children on that day, when we shall find ourselves in a minority
of perhaps one in twenty, without a single friend amongst the other
nineteen, amongst those who will then tell us they wished to be
brothers, but that we by our own act made them strangers to the
Republic? Old as the world is, has an attempt like ours ever
succeeded for long? Shall we say as a French king did that things
will last our time, and after that we reck not the deluge? Again I
ask what account is to be given to our descendants and what can be
our hope in the future?

Mr. DE CLERCQ opposed the extension.

Mr. JAN DE BEER said he could not agree to the prayer for extension.
The burghers would decide time enough when the dam was too full, or
when fresh water was wanted. He had gone through the memorials, and
some that wished an extension were unknown to him, even those who
signed from his district. Very few persons were in favour of the
extension. If the burghers wished it he would give it, he would agree
to it. The people coolly asked the Raad to extend the franchise to
80,000 persons, men who were not naturalized and had nothing to lose.
He did not mind extending the franchise to a few. When it was a small
case he did not object, but when it came to giving away their
birthright wholesale he kicked. He did not object to give the burgher
right to _persons who shot Kaffirs_, or he had better say, persons
who went into the native wars on behalf of the Transvaal, because
they shed their blood for the country; but people who came here only
to make money and that only did not deserve the franchise. Let them
look at that book of signatures on the table with the 70,000 names.
Who were they? (Laughter, and cries of 'Too much.') Well, 38,000
then. He had 'too much.' They were the persons, the millionaires side
by side with mining workers whom Mr. Jeppe spoke of, but where did
they find these people side by side? Nowhere! No, he would not grant
an extension of the franchise.

The PRESIDENT said he wished to say a few words on the subject, and
the first thing he had to say was that those persons who signed the
monster petition were unfaithful and not law-abiding.

Mr. JEPPE: I deny that.

The PRESIDENT: Yes--I repeat unfaithful.

Mr. JEPPE (excitedly): I say they are not!

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

The PRESIDENT then endeavoured to qualify his remarks by reasserting
that these people were disrespectful and disobedient to the law,
because they were not naturalized. 'Now,' asked His Honour
triumphantly, 'can you contradict that? No, you cannot. No one can.
The law says that they must be naturalized, and they are not.'
Speeches had been made that afternoon, His Honour proceeded, urging
that the rich should be made burghers and not the poor. Why not the
poor as well as the rich, if that were the case? But he was against
granting any extension, saving in cases like that he mentioned the
other day. Those who went on commando were entitled to it, but no
others. Those persons who showed they loved the country by making
such sacrifices were entitled to the franchise, and they should get
it. These memorials were being sent in year by year, and yearly
threats were made to them if they did not open the flood-gates. If
the dam was full before the walls were washed over, a certain portion
of the water had to be drained off. Well, this had been done in
the case of commando men. They were the clean water which was drained
off and taken into the inner dam which consisted of clean water, but
he did not wish to take in the dirty water also. No, it had to remain
in the outer dam until it was cleaned and purified. The Raad might
just as well give away the independence of the country as give all
these new-comers, these disobedient persons, the franchise. These
persons knew there was a law, but they wished to evade it; they
wished to climb the wall instead of going along the road quietly, and
these persons should be kept back. He earnestly cautioned the Raad
against adopting Mr. L. Meyer's proposal.

Mr. D. JOUBERT said excitement would not avail them. They had to be
calm and deliberate. Now, what struck him was first who would give
them the assurance, were they to admit the 35,000 persons who
petitioned them for the franchise, that they would maintain the
independence of the country inviolate and as a sacred heritage? They
had no guarantee. He could not agree with the request of the petition
(here the speaker became excited, and gesticulating violently,
continued), and he would never grant the request if the decision was
in his hands.

Mr. A.J. WOLMARANS said that his position on this question was that
he would not budge an inch.

Mr. JAN MEYER impugned the genuineness of the petition, and said he
had represented Johannesburg in the Raad for some time, and could
tell them how those things were worked. They were nearly all
forgeries. He stated that as there were only 40,000 people in
Johannesburg it was impossible that 38,000 of them signed. Therefore
they were forgeries. The speaker concluded by saying that as long as
he lived he would never risk the independence of the country by
granting the franchise, _except in accordance with the law_. It was
unreasonable to ask him to give up his precious birthright in this
thoughtless manner. He could not do it--he would not do it!

Mr. PRINSLOO said that he had gone through the petitions from
Potchefstroom, and certainly he had to admit that many of the
signatures were not genuine, for he found on these petitions the
names of his next-door neighbours, who had never told him a word
about their signing such petitions.

Mr. OTTO again addressed the Raad, endeavouring to prove that
memorials from Ottos Hoop contained many forgeries. He said that he
did not consider the Johannesburg people who signed in that wonderful
and fat book on the table to be law-abiding, and he would have none
of them. The Raad had frequently heard that if the franchise were not
extended there would be trouble. He was tired of these constant
threats. He would say, 'Come on and fight! Come on!' (Cries of
'Order!')

Mr. OTTO (proceeding): I say, 'Come on and have it out; and the
sooner the better.' I cannot help it, Mr. Chairman, I must speak out.
I say I am prepared to fight them, and I think every burgher of the
South African Republic is with me.

The CHAIRMAN (rapping violently): Order, order!

Mr. OTTO: Yes, this poor South African Republic, which they say they
own three-fourths of. They took it from us, and we fought for it and
got it back.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. OTTO: They called us rebels then. I say they are rebels.

Loud cries of 'Order!'

Mr. OTTO: I will say to-day, those persons who signed the memorials
in that book are rebels.

The CHAIRMAN: Will you keep order? You have no right to say such
things. We are not considering the question of powers, but the
peaceful question of the extension of the franchise to-day; and keep
to the point.

Mr. OTTO: Very well I will; but I call the whole country to witness
that you silenced me, and would not allow me to speak out my mind.

The PRESIDENT said they had to distinguish between trustworthy
persons and untrustworthy, and one proof was their going on commando,
and the other was their becoming naturalized. People who were
naturalized were more or less worthy, and if they separated
themselves from the others who would not get naturalized, and
petitioned the Raad themselves, the Raad would give ear to their
petition. He strongly disapproved of the Raad being deceived in the
manner it had been by the forged signatures.

Mr. R.K. LOVEDAY, in the course of an address dealing exhaustively
with the subject, said: The President uses the argument that they
should naturalize, and thus give evidence of their desire to become
citizens. I have used the same argument, but what becomes of such
arguments when met with the objections that the law requires such
persons to undergo a probationary period extending from fourteen to
twenty-four years before they are admitted to full rights of
citizenship, and even after one has undergone that probationary
period, he can only be admitted to full rights by resolution of the
First Raad? Law 4 of 1890, being the Act of the two Volksraads, lays
down clearly and distinctly that those who have been eligible for ten
years for the Second Raad _can_ be admitted to full citizenship. So
that, in any case, the naturalized citizen cannot obtain full rights
until he reaches the age of forty years, he not being eligible for
the Second Raad until he is thirty years. The child born of
non-naturalized parents must therefore wait until he is forty
years-of age, although at the age of sixteen he may be called upon to
do military service, and may fall in the defence of the land of his
birth. When such arguments are hurled at me by our own flesh and
blood--our kinsmen from all parts of South Africa--I must confess
that I am not surprised that these persons indignantly refuse to
accept citizenship upon such unreasonable terms. The element I have
just referred to--namely, the Africander element--is very
considerable, and numbers thousands hundreds of whom at the time this
country was struggling for its independence, accorded it moral and
financial support, and yet these very persons are subjected to a term
of probation extending from fourteen to twenty-four years. It is
useless for me to ask you whether such a policy is just and
reasonable or Republican, for there can be but one answer, and that
is 'No!' Is there one man in this Raad who would accept the franchise
on the same terms? Let me impress upon you the grave nature of this
question, and the absolute necessity of going to the burghers without
a moment's delay, and consulting and advising them. Let us keep
nothing from them regarding the true position, and I am sure we shall
have their hearty co-operation in any reasonable scheme we may
suggest. This is a duty we owe them, for we must not leave them under
the impression that the Uitlanders are satisfied to remain aliens, as
stated by some of the journals. I move amongst these people, and
learn to know their true feelings, and when public journals tell you
that these people are satisfied with their lot, they tell you that
which they know to be false. Such journals are amongst the greatest
sources of danger that the country has. We are informed by certain
members that a proposition for the extension of the franchise must
come from the burghers, but according to the Franchise Law the
proposition must come from the Raad, and the public must consent. The
member for Rustenberg says that there are 9,338 burghers who have
declared that they are opposed to the extension of the franchise.
Upon reference to the Report, he will find that there are only 1,564
opposed to the extension. Members appear afraid to touch upon the
real question at issue, but try to discredit the memorials by vague
statements that some of the signatures are not genuine, and the
former member for Johannesburg, Mr. J. Meyer, seems just as anxious
to discredit the people of Johannesburg as formerly he was to defend
them.

The CHAIRMAN advanced many arguments in favour of granting the
franchise to the Uitlander, but nevertheless concluded by stating
that as the Raad with few exceptions were against the extension, he
would go with the majority. He was not, he said, averse to the
publication of Mr. Meyer's proposition, because the country would
have to decide upon it; still he could not favour the extension of
the franchise in the face of what had been said during the debate.
Let the Raad endeavour to lighten the burden of the alien in other
respects. Let the alien come to the Raad with his grievances, and let
the Raad give a patient ear unto him, but he really was not entitled
to the franchise.

The PRESIDENT again counselled the Raad not to consent to the
publication of Mr. Meyer's proposal. He did not want it put to the
country. This business had been repeated from year to year until he
was tired of it. And why should they worry and weary the burghers
once more by asking them to decide upon Mr. Meyer's motion? There was
no need for it. There was no uncertainty about it. The burghers knew
their minds, and their will, which was supreme, was known. The way
was open for aliens to become burghers; let them follow that road and
not try to jump over the wall. They had the privilege of voting for
the Second Raad if they became naturalized, and could vote for
officials, and that was more than they could do in the Cape Colony.
In the Colony they could not vote for a President or any official.
They were all appointed. They could only vote for Raad members there.
And why should they want more power here all at once? What was the
cause of all this commotion? What were they clamouring for? He knew.
They wanted to get leave to vote for members of the First Raad, which
had the independence of the country under its control. He had been
told by these people that 'if you take us on the same van with you,
we cannot overturn the van without hurting ourselves as well as you.'
'_Ja_,' that was true, '_maar_,' the PRESIDENT continued, they could
pull away the reins and drive the van along a different route.

Mr. JEPPE, again speaking, said there was one matter he must refer
to. That was his Honour's remarks about the petitioners, calling them
disobedient and unfaithful. The law compels no one to naturalize
himself. How then could these petitioners have disobeyed it? Of
course we should prefer them to naturalize. But can we be surprised
if they hesitate to do so? Mr. Loveday has told you what
naturalization means to them.

The PRESIDENT agreed that these people were not obliged by law to
naturalize, but if they wanted burgher rights they should do so, when
they would get the franchise for the Second Raad; and upon their
being naturalized let them come nicely to the Raad and the Raad would
have something to go to the country with, and they would receive
fair treatment; but, if they refused naturalization and rejected the
Transvaal laws, could they expect the franchise? No. Let Mr. Jeppe go
back and give his people good advice, and if they were obedient to
the law and became naturalized they would not regret it; but he
could not expect his people to be made full burghers if they were
disobedient and refused naturalization. Let them do as he advised,