exciting the feelings of so sensitive a community. The people of the Rand well knew that it was but a question of time when the encroachments and inroads of a corrupt Government would leave their possessions as insecure as their liberties, and whilst enjoying the benefits of good government, they ought not to forget that Brown, at great personal cost did probably more than any other private individual to satisfy thinking people of the absolute dishonesty and hopelessness of Kruger rule, and thus materially assisted to bring about the change, the benefits of which they are now enjoying.

It is therefore submitted that the contention that the granting of the licenses would create a feeling of insecurity should not be given effect to.

If public policy requires that the present licences be upheld in other words, that Brown be deprived of what rightfully belongs to him-justice demands that he be compensated for what he is required to give up for the public benefit.

It must be apparent from the original argument that Brown has no redress through the Courts, as the origin and cause of his difficulties, viz., the unfair conduct of the newly appointed Court is a matter in regard to which the present High Court cannot take cognizance. How can the present High Court investigate the motives of their predecessors in office and set aside or confirm judgments according to the amount of bias displayed by the different members of the Bench?

Brown's redress must be through the Executive, who, it is submitted should act upon being reasonably satisfied of his right to relief.

The circumstances, however, relating to Mr. Brown's claim are too well known to admit of dispute or contradiction, and the injustice meted out to him so notorious that further enquiry and investigation can hardly be necessary to substantiate facts that are accepted as true by the entire British public.

The Minute of the Attorney-General contains the reasons for the rejection of Mr. Brown's application. Are these reasons sufficient? Can it be fairly urged that Mr. Brown should have consented to re-try his suit before a Court each member of which has taken an oath to decide against him, and whose predecessors had been dismissed for deciding in his favour?

Is it reasonable or fair to suggest that after having

the Republic, that Mr. Brown should again embark in litigation against the 100 burghers to whom President Kruger has allotted the land, particularly when it is quite apparent that owing to the action of the servile, newly constructed Court, success in legal proceedings is practically impossible?

Is the Government under no obligation, legal or moral, to assist Mr. Brown in the recovery of his rights?

Can it reasonably refuse to assist him, when the withholding of assistance by the Government means, in effect, the sanctioning of a notorious injustice?

For these and other reasons it is respectfully urged that Mr. Brown's request for the issue of the licenses for the claims in question be granted with such further or other relief as may be deemed proper.

ANNEX 20.

Mr. Chamberlain to Governor-General the Earl of Minto

My Lord,

(Canada.)

Downing Street, October 24, 1902. I HAVE the honour to request that you will cause Mr. T. G. Galt to be informed that I have had under my consideration his letters of the 6th September and the 8th instant, respecting the action brought by the late Mr. R. E. Brown against the Government of the late South African Republic in connection with certain mining claims pegged off by him on the farm Witfontein, and that I regret that I am unable to interfere in the matter.

Mr. Galt's address is :--Bank of Toronto, corner of Wellington and Church Streets, Toronto.

I have, &c.

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

ANNEX 21.

Memorandum by the Registrar of Mining Titles, Johannesburg, an Officer in the Mines Department of the Union of South Africa.

Plan.

THE accompanying blue print, Enclosure 1, will be useful in dealing with Brown's claim. It illustrates the whole area of the farm and the deep red line marked upon it represents the 1,200 claims which Brown alleged that he pegged on the 19th July, 1895. This blue print was lodged in the office of the Registrar of Mining Rights in 1902-presumably at the time Galt pursued his enquiries. It cannot, however, be definitely stated that it is authentic as there is no record of Brown having lodged with the mining officials a sketch or diagram illustrating the area or ground pegged by him on the 19th July, 1895, but it is believed that this blue print is similar to the sketch of the ground claimed by Brown which was produced in the action Brown v. Leyds, N.O. 1895-97. It shows the owners' reservations, the "werven" and "mijnpachten" to which the owners were entitled under the Gold Law; the claims surveyed for lottery purposes with the numbers allotted to them, the water-rights reserved, the vergunning claims issued by the owners and recognized by the Government, the owners' claims and the discoverers' claims.

In addition the blue print has been marked to show the ground claimed by Brown (area enclosed by the deep red border), the lottery claims and vergunning claims which were affected by Brown's pegging. The claims held today are marked in yellow.

The actual situation and extent of the several blocks of the vergunning claims are shown as accurately as the information available will admit. Some of the blocks were surveyed and these have been accurately plotted, but others were only shown upon sketch plans.

Any inaccuracy in the plotting of claims from the sketches is not of importance, as the area marked “vergunning" was the area surveyed by the Government to cover the claims issued or granted by the owners, and the extent to which they as a whole were affected by Brown's pegging is sufficiently clear for the purpose of

these observations.

Each claim shown on the blue print, whether lottery * See post, p. Annex 26.

claim, vergunning or any other claim, was in extent 150 feet by 400 feet. The lottery claims were numbered from 1 to 2,350, the vergunning claims from la to 621a, 2631/26399, 2351a/2390a, and the owners' claims 622a/631a.

Whether Brown would have been successful in pegging 1,200 claims.

It is difficult at this time to state how many persons were present at Witfontein on the 19th July 1895, but that there was a large number of persons congregated on the farm for the purpose of participating in the pegging out of claims there can be no doubt, because of the extraordinary precautions taken by the Government to prevent disorderly conduct and to maintain order. Bodies of police were drafted from Johannesburg and Krugersdorp; authority was obtained for the enrolment of special constables; a special force of detectives was ordered to be present, and, lastly, the protests received by the Responsible Clerk at Doornkop against the suspension of the proclamation were numerous. It is difficult to say to what extent Brown would have succeeded in securing 1200 claims if the proclamation had not been suspended.

In the Government file R. 5032/95 there are 22 letters of protest, all of which were filed with the officials on the 19th and 20th July 1895. On each of these letters of protest is endorsed a statement to the effect that the necessary amount of licence money had been tendered for the claims which the protestants alleged they were entitled to. The protests deal with 3205 claims. Those protests dated 19th July deal with 1665 claims and those dated 20th July with the balance. There are many other protests contained in the file mentioned but no note of these has been made because they all bear dates subsequent to the 20th of the month, but the protests of the 20th of July have been included although it is just possible that evidence could be produced that the persons who signed them had not actually made the tenders until the day after the proclamation. There are also letters contained in the same file in which the writers allege that they, too, had pegged claims without being in possession of the necessary licence.

Number of Claims at Witfontein.

The eastern portion of the farm Witfontein No. 572 proclaimed a public digging by the proclamation of the 18th June 1895, as from the 19th July 1895, was in extent