this effect, and what, for instance, would be done in case a witness
who had been heard at the preliminary examination should die before
the main trial came off. The reply was, that in such a case of course
the Government would be bound to use some of the evidence, but would
use it with discretion and not unfairly. This undertaking provoked
smiles even in court. The wisdom and fairness of Mr. Wessels'
contention were fully justified when the trial actually did take
place, for the whole of the evidence of the preliminary examination
was handed in for the guidance of the judge in determining his
sentences against the accused. It may be added that each witness was
called upon to sign the notes of his evidence as taken down in Dutch.
When required, the official reporter read a free translation of the
notes to the witness before they were signed.

At the conclusion of the examination all the prisoners were committed
on the same charge--that of high treason--no distinction whatever
being made in the references to them from the Bench. By this time Mr.
Hammond, who had been ill, was released on bail of £20,000 in order
to go to the seaside.

Application was made on behalf of Colonel Rhodes, Messrs. Phillips,
Farrar, and FitzPatrick for release on bail, upon the grounds that no
distinction whatever had been made between them and the other
prisoners who had already been released, but this was refused after
the point had been reserved for consideration by the State Attorney
in consultation with the Chief Justice, and the four men returned to
their former conditions of imprisonment. Mr. Chamberlain continued to
make representations on behalf of these men, and at one time it
appeared as though the restrictions would be removed, Dr. Coster
having pledged himself to accept bail, and having actually drawn out
the bail-bonds and submitted them to the solicitors of the accused
for approval, and every arrangement having been completed--even to
the finding of the additional security. They were however at the last
moment curtly informed that bail would not be allowed. On this being
reported to Mr. Chamberlain, he at once replied to the effect that he
could not believe that a Government would revoke a promise made on
their behalf by the State Attorney. Dr. Leyds, on behalf of his
Government, stated that the matter was in the hands of the State
Attorney alone and did not concern the Executive, and that on inquiry
he found that no such promise had been made and no undertaking given.
The incident is more or less trivial, but again shows the readiness
with which the Boer Government repudiate a promise when it is to
their convenience to do so. Dr. Coster on his side admitted with
expressions of regret that there had been a breach of undertaking,
and stated that it had been done by order of the Executive Council.

Communications between Mr. Chamberlain and the Pretoria Government
were of great frequency during this period. The phantom of Mr.
Kruger's visit to England was chased with great assiduity. The wily
old President seized on Mr. Chamberlain's suggestions as an excellent
pretext for delay to enable him to spread his nets, and he used the
time to great advantage. But this was not the worst! Mr.
Chamberlain's new diplomacy and his stupid or treacherous advisers
led him into blunders; as when, for instance, he tried to bounce
without the intention of making good his implied threats; and when
he sent his 4th of February despatch (publishing it in London before
it reached Pretoria), strongly and ably reviewing the position, but
spoiling all by a proposal which, whilst it had not been suggested to
or discussed by the Rand people, and would not have been acceptable
to them in lieu of what they had demanded, was also an interference
in the internal affairs of the Transvaal. It gave the Pretoria
Government an opportunity, which they did not miss, of severely
snubbing Mr. Chamberlain. When the latter in turn peremptorily
refused their demands, he was informed that the cancellation of the
London Convention would not be pressed '_at present_,' but might
remain in abeyance.

Throughout the period prior to the main trial, President Kruger
continued to use with great effect 'the wishes and intentions of his
burghers.' When bail was first refused to the leaders this course was
justified on the grounds that the burghers were strongly against it,
and that the President could not act against their wishes. When at a
later stage a petition was presented by a number of burghers more or
less in touch with the Uitlander community, who felt that the
treatment of the leaders was having a bad effect, counter petitions
came in within a day or two urging the Government on no account to
extend the privilege of bail to these men. Oddly enough, these
petitions were got up and signed by relatives and near connexions of
the President himself.

During this period another petition was presented which is surely
without parallel in a civilized state; but it illustrates admirably
the Boer idea of right and liberty. Fifty burghers in the district of
Standerton addressed the Government, pointing out the undesirability
of allowing a 'certain Advocate Wessels to defend the Jameson
rebels,' and praying that the Government would put him over the
border, 'which is the slightest punishment that can be inflicted upon
him.' The receipt of this petition was announced in the Government
organ, the _Press_, on March 25.

At about this time another incident occurred which excited
considerable feeling. Commandant Henning Pretorius, one of the most
prominent Boer officials, having paid a visit to his native district
in the Cape Colony shortly after the Jameson raid, purchased from
the owner of a farm at Cookhouse Drift the beam from which the five
Boers had been hanged at Slagter's Nek for rebellion in the year
1816. Reference has already been made in the first chapter to this
deplorable affair. The beam (which had been built into the house) was
brought up by the purchaser to Pretoria. He states, and no doubt
truly, that he obtained the historical relic for the purpose of
adding it to the National Museum; but it must be added that the time
was not well chosen unless the intention was to rouse feeling. The
_Volksstem_, the Hollander-Boer organ, in an extremely violent
article, described in detail the Slagter's Nek executions, and called
upon the burghers to avenge on the persons of the Reformers their
murdered countrymen; and it is a fact vouched for by persons by no
means friendly to the Uitlander that certain Boers approached
President Kruger, intimating to him that the beam had arrived, that
it would not be necessary to bother about a trial, but that the four
men should be hanged out of hand from the same scaffold which had
served for their compatriots. It is but right to say that President
Kruger's reply was a severe reprimand, and a reminder that they were
not a barbarous people, but should comply with the law. The matter
having been brought to the notice of Mr. Chamberlain, strong
representations were made upon the subject, to which the Transvaal
Government replied (forgetful apparently of the fact that the
President had frequently urged his inability to control his burghers)
that the Transvaal was a civilized State, that the burghers were
law-abiding and peaceful people, and that their Government was at all
times able to control them. It was interesting to see the argument of
the burghers getting out of hand, which was used with such effect in
the case of Dr. Jameson and quoted by Sir Hercules Robinson, recoil
upon the head of its originator.

A final effort was made by the people of Johannesburg to obtain the
release on bail of the four prisoners. A petition bearing the
signatures of 20,000 persons was presented; the gentlemen bearing the
petition were informed that it could not be received; that they must
call again. Having called again and again, the petition was at last
accepted and placed before the Government; but no reply was ever
vouchsafed. The treatment of this memorial is in sharp contrast
with that accorded to the one presented by a score or so of the
President's relatives and supporters--objecting to the release.

From the time of the arrests until just before the trial speculation
was rife as to which judge would preside. The Chief Justice and Judge
Ameshof could hardly sit (even allowing for the precedents already
established by them), since they had both acted on the Government
Commission in negotiating with the prisoners, and one of them had
already given evidence against the accused. There remained Justices
Jorissen, De Korté and Morice. Mr. De Korté was then threatened with
suspension owing to pecuniary embarrassments, and would evidently not
be allowed to preside. The fifth judge, Mr. Jorissen, had expressed
himself so violently against the Reformers that he had himself
recognized the impossibility of attaining an impartial attitude, and
had refused to sit. The only judge available was therefore Mr.
Justice Morice, against whom there was no valid objection whatever.
Moreover, in the ordinary routine it so happened that it was his turn
to preside at the forthcoming trial; but he was known to hold Liberal
views and to be strongly in sympathy with internal reform.

At this time Chief-Justice Kotzé undertook several journeys to the
Free State and Cape Colony, ostensibly to rid himself of insomnia,
but in reality, as results proved, in order to employ a judge for
this trial. His choice eventually fell upon Mr. Gregorowski, formerly
a judge in the Free State, and at that time State-Attorney to that
country.

Mr. Gregorowski was noted on the Bench for the peculiar severity of
his sentences on all except Boers. He had moreover expressed openly
in Bloemfontein his wish that he might have the trying of 'those
Reformers; he would give them what for.' These things were not known
at the time of the trial; nor had the fact yet come out that before
taking the oath of office he had endeavoured to borrow from at least
one of his colleagues a black cap for the forthcoming trial. His
attitude at the time is sufficiently indicated by what he wrote
shortly after the trial, in defence of his action, '_I came up to put
down rebellion._ I have done so with a strong hand, and I believe
that my judgment will bear good fruit in the future.' The prisoners
could not but contrast the action of the Government in employing and
appointing, on approval, a judge who had no status whatever in the
country, with their action in declining to allow Mr. Rose Innes to
appear at the Bar on the pretext of his previous qualification not
being in order; and it was felt to be ominous that an independent and
upright judge, against whom there could be no objection, should be
passed over, and another specially imported for the occasion.

The trial was at last fixed to take place on April 27, and the
indictments were served upon the accused six days before that date.
The following is the list of those who were committed for trial:

Lionel Phillips
Colonel F.W. Rhodes
George Farrar
J.H. Hammond
J.P. FitzPatrick
S.W. Jameson
G. Richards
J.L. Williams
G. Sandilands
F. Spencer
R.A. Bettington
J.G. Auret
E.P. Solomon
J.W. Leonard
W.H.S. Bell
W.E. Hudson
D.F. Gilfillan
C.H. Mullins
E.O. Hutchinson
W. van Hulsteyn
A. Woolls-Sampson
H.C. Hull
Alf. Brown
C.L. Andersson
M. Langermann
W. Hosken
W. St. John Carr
H.F. Strange
C. Garland
Fred Gray{33}
A. Mackie Niven
Dr. W.T.F. Davies
Dr. R.P. Mitchell
Dr. Hans Sauer
Dr. A.P. Hillier
Dr. D.P. Duirs
Dr. W. Brodie
H.J. King
A. Bailey
Sir Drummond Dunbar
H.E. Becher
F. Mosenthal
H.A. Rogers
C. Butters
Walter D. Davies
H. Bettelheim
F.R. Lingham
A.L. Lawley
W.B. Head
V.M. Clement
W. Goddard
J.J. Lace
C.A. Tremeer
R.G. Fricker
J.M. Buckland
J. Donaldson
F.H. Hamilton
P. du Bois
H.B. Marshall
S.B. Joel
A.R. Goldring
J.A. Roger
Thomas Mein
J.S. Curtis{34}

The indictment served on all alike was as follows:

H.J. Coster, State Attorney of the South African Republic, who, on
behalf of the State, prosecutes, brings to the notice of the Court:

That they (citing the accused), all and each or one or more of them,
are guilty of the crime of High Treason:

Firstly: In that in or about the months of November and December in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, the
exact dates being unknown to the State Attorney, they, the said
accused, at Johannesburg, Witwatersrand Goldfields, South African
Republic, being citizens of, or residing in, this Republic, all and
each or one or more of them wrongfully, unlawfully, and with a
hostile intention to disturb, injure, or bring into danger the
independence or safety of this Republic, treated, conspired, agreed
with and urged Leander Starr Jameson, an alien, residing without the
boundaries of this Republic, to come into the territory of this
Republic at the head of and with an armed and hostile troop, and to
make a hostile invasion and to march through to Johannesburg
aforesaid.

Secondly: In that they (the said accused), being citizens of, or
residing in, this Republic, all and each or one or more of them,
there and then in conjunction with Charles Leonard and Dr. H. Wolff,
now fugitives, and other persons unknown to the State Attorney,
appearing and acting as a committee, by them named the 'Reform
Committee,' after the above-mentioned Leander Starr Jameson, on or
about December 29, in the year aforesaid, had come from without the
Republic, at the head of and with an armed and hostile troop, in the
neighbourhood of Ottoshoop, district Marico, into the territory of
this Republic, and had made a hostile invasion, and had violently
attempted to penetrate through to Johannesburg aforesaid, wrongfully,
unlawfully, and with a hostile intention to disturb, injure, or bring
into danger the independence or safety of this Republic, gave, or
attempted to give, the aforementioned Leander Starr Jameson during
his hostile invasion aforesaid information about the state of the
defences at Johannesburg, and had armed troops ready to assist, and
sent assistance to him, and subsequently by seditious speeches made,
or caused to be made, in public, with the object to persuade and
induce the people there to stand by the aforementioned Jameson in his
hostile invasion, and further have assisted him, the aforementioned
Jameson, during his hostile invasion above mentioned, by providing
him with provisions, forage, and horses.

Thirdly: That in or about the month of December, in the year
aforesaid, and in the month of January in the year one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-six, exact dates not known to the State Attorney,
at Johannesburg aforesaid, they (the said accused), being inhabitants
of, and residing in, this Republic, all and each or one or more of
them, then and there, in conjunction with Charles Leonard and Dr. H.
Wolff, now fugitives, and other persons unknown to the State
Attorney, appearing and acting as a committee named by them the
'Reform Committee,' wrongfully and unlawfully, and with a hostile
intention to disturb, injure, or bring into danger the independence
or safety of this Republic, have distributed, or caused to be
distributed, amongst the population there, and in the neighbourhood
thereof, Maxim guns, other weapons, arms, and ammunition; further,
have enrolled men, or have caused them to be enrolled, and have
formed them, or have caused them to be formed, into military corps;
have erected there, or caused to be erected, earthworks and other
fortifications.

Fourthly: In that in or about the month of December and the month of
January, the exact dates being unknown to the State Attorney, and at
Johannesburg aforesaid they (the said accused), being citizens of,
and residing in, this Republic, all and each or one or more of them,
then and there, in conjunction with Charles Leonard and Dr. H. Wolff,
now fugitives, and other persons unknown to the State Attorney,
appearing and acting as a committee called by them the 'Reform
Committee,' wrongfully and unlawfully, with hostile intention to
disturb, injure, or bring into danger the independence or safety of
this Republic, have arrogated to themselves, and have exercised and
caused to be exercised, the functions, and powers belonging to the
authorities of this Republic; by violence, or by threats of violence,
have compelled, or caused to be compelled, the police of this
Republic stationed at Johannesburg aforesaid to leave the public
squares and streets; have formed, or caused to be formed, their own
police corps, and have provided that corps, or caused it to be
provided, with guns and other arms; and further have appointed, or
caused to be appointed, as head of that corps, Andrew Trimble, and
have entrusted him with jurisdiction in police cases, in virtue
whereof the aforementioned Andrew Trimble has passed sentence and
caused it to be carried out.

In consequence of all which acts abovementioned the independence of
this country was brought into danger, and its safety disturbed and
impaired.

Wherefore the State Attorney, after due proof and conviction thereof,
requests the judgment of this Court against said accused, according
to law.

The general opinion based upon the character of the evidence adduced
at the preliminary examination was that it would be impossible to
sustain the charge of high treason; but the disclosure of the
documents in the possession of the State Attorney put a different
complexion upon the case. Then for the first time the members of the
Reform Committee became aware of that factor in their case which has
since become famous as 'de trommel van Bobby White'--Major Robert
White's despatch-box--a veritable conjurer's hat, from which Mr.
Kruger produced to an admiring and astonished world the political
equivalents of eggs and goldfish, pigeons and white mice. In this box
(which was taken with the invading force at Doornkop) it appears
Major White had brought as much of his previous correspondence as he
could conveniently carry, together with diaries, notebooks,
code-books, cipher-keys, etc. Nor was this all. He had brought a copy
of the letter of invitation, certified by himself as magistrate in
the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Revelations at and subsequent to the
trial show that the State Attorney, on discovering this copy and
finding that as a copy it would not be admitted and that he might
experience some difficulty in proving it, prevailed upon Major White
while in the Pretoria gaol to confirm his previous certificate, and
to make an affidavit to the effect that he had compared the letter
with the original, that it was a true copy, and that he had examined
the signatures, and believed them to be the signatures of the persons
indicated. The State Attorney alleges that he bargained with Major
White for this affidavit, and in return surrendered to him certain
private documents which had also been taken in the despatch-box.
Major White on the other hand stated to the writer and to another
member of the Reform Committee--Mr. H.C. Hull--that there is no truth
in the allegation that he received a _quid pro quo_; but has no
excuse to offer for making the affidavit, except that he--_'does not
remember having done it.'_

The Reform prisoners, who, animated by a desire not to give any of
their comrades away, had for a period of close upon four months borne
all the abuse which could be heaped upon them, and had abstained from
making any defence in public, or any of those revelations such as
have since been made through the exertion of the Transvaal
authorities, the Select Committee of the Cape House of Assembly, and
the Bow Street officers, found to their inexpressible disgust that
the efforts which they had made were rendered futile by the capture
of these documents; and they were highly incensed at the action of
one of the very men whose lives they believed they had saved by
surrendering on January 7. The affidavit was looked upon as
unpardonable, and the unnecessary statement regarding the genuineness
of the signatures was interpreted in a very unpleasant sense.

Consultations now took place between Mr. Advocate Wessels and Mr.
Richard Solomon, Q.C., of Kimberley, who had also been retained on
behalf of the accused; and endeavours were made to obtain from the
State Attorney details of the evidence which it was proposed to
bring, but with only partial success. From the facts already known to
them it was clear that the Government were determined to stretch
every point in law to their own advantage and to indulge in few
scruples as to the means to be employed to secure a conviction. The
Judge, it was known, had been specially imported for this trial,
and provisionally appointed to a seat on the Bench. As the
confirmation of his appointment was to take place when the Volksraad
should meet, or at any rate at some period subsequent to the trial,
it was not unnatural to regard his as a case in which a judge was
appointed on approval, the appointment to be either confirmed or
cancelled according to the satisfaction which he should give.

Appeal to the full bench of the High Court had already been proved to
be entirely useless; since the only judges to whom appeal could be
made were those who had in the earlier stages associated themselves
with the Government against the Reform Committee, and later on in
their judicial capacities confirmed the attitude taken up by them as
patriots.

The options before the prisoners were therefore three in number. One
course would be to enter upon a protracted trial before a Boer jury
and a specially-appointed judge, with the certainty for the majority
of an adverse verdict in any case. In such a trial numberless
occasions would arise for the exercise of discretion in the admission
or rejection of evidence, and any defence of the prisoners must
necessarily partake of the character of an indictment against the
Government and the faction which both judge and jury avowedly
represented, and tend only to aggravate the penalty. They would
moreover have to face that trial as a body of over sixty men, many of
whom could have reasonably set up special defences, many of whom were
not even mentioned in any evidence which the Government had yet
secured (with the exception of course of Judge Ameshof's _privileged_
list), and could therefore reasonably expect to be discharged on
making individual defences. The second alternative was to decline to
plead at all, on the ground that they had negotiated with the
Government in good faith, and that a treacherous arrest and breach of
understandings arrived at would not be recognised in any way by
them--in fact, to refuse to condone treachery or take a hand in a
farce. The third course was to plead guilty, and take a short cut on
the best terms possible to what was realized to be a pre-arranged
conclusion.

The second alternative was rejected, because it was found to be
impossible to secure unanimity of action. In the course of the
discussions upon the other alternatives, certain negotiations took
place between the State Attorney Dr. Coster and Mr. Wessels, the
result of which was that Dr. Coster made the following offer: If the
leaders (the signatories to the letter of invitation) would consent
to plead guilty to count 1 of the indictment, he would agree to
withdraw as against them counts 2, 3, and 4; and in such case he
would agree that the rank and file should plead guilty to counts 3
and 4 only, he withdrawing as against them counts 1 and 2. The matter
was discussed by the prisoners, and objection was taken to that part
of the indictment in which it was stated that the Reform Committee
had acted 'with a hostile intention to disturb, injure or bring into
danger the independence or safety of this Republic.'

Another meeting took place between the State Attorney and Mr.
Wessels, at which Dr. Coster agreed to eliminate from the indictment
against the rank and file the words objected to, provided that the
leaders would plead guilty to count 1. Having arrived at this--to
him--satisfactory conclusion, Dr. Coster remarked that they (_i.e.,_
all except the four) were now charged with a merely nominal offence.
Mr. Wessels endeavoured to obtain the same alteration in the
indictment of the leaders, but this was refused on the ground that it
would make the indictment ridiculous; and, _apropos_ of the
concession to the rank and file, Dr. Coster even expressed doubts as
to whether, if the hostile intention were eliminated, any crime could
be said to remain under the indictment. He however agreed to allow
the four leaders to qualify their plea by a statement in writing
which they were to put in at the same time. He stated that he would
have _pro forma_ to put in some evidence of the offence, but
undertook not to press for exemplary punishment, and moreover
promised that he would not dispute or question the statement to be
put in, provided that it contained no material error in fact.

A discussion then followed as to the law under which the trial would
take place. Mr. Wessels urged that, as there was specific provision
in the statute law for cases of this nature, the statute law would of
course apply in preference to Roman-Dutch law. Dr. Coster said he
presumed that this would be the case, but that he was not quite sure
whether Roman-Dutch law would not apply. He added however that
anything he could say would not be binding upon the judge, who could
alone decide as to the question of law.

Mr. Wessels's report to his clients induced the rank and file to
agree under the altered circumstances to the third alternative,
namely, pleading guilty, and they agreed to this under the
impression, which without doubt had been suggested and deliberately
fostered by the Government, that they were pleading guilty to a
nominal offence, and would incur a monetary penalty in proportion.

In consultation with the leaders, Mr. Wessels reported the
discussions with Dr. Coster as above given. Both he and Mr. Solomon
represented to them the gravity of the plea, and said that there was
the possibility that the judge would invoke Roman-Dutch law and
ignore the laws of the country, in which case it would be in his
power to pass sentence of death. In their opinion, they added, and in
the opinion of Mr. Rose Innes and others, this would be a monstrous
straining of the law, yet they felt bound to indicate the
possibility.

The course before the prisoners was not indeed an attractive one, but
it was not without its recommendations. It would have been infinitely
preferable to fight it out had there been a chance of a good fight,
if even a losing one; but, apart from a verdict of guilty being an
absolute certainty, the circumstances were against any possibility of
effecting anything like a strong impeachment of the Government.
Moreover, the course now proposed would prevent any 'giving away' of
Dr. Jameson, who had yet to be tried, and of others; and it also
removed the necessity for individual defences by those among the
prisoners who had been involved in a less degree than others. The
matter at that time appeared in one way to concern the leaders only.
If they were willing to take upon themselves the burden of the charge
and secure the acquittal of others by accepting the full
responsibility, it could only be regarded as a chivalrous act. But
there were some among the other the prisoners--'Irreconcilables,'
as they were called--who considered themselves equally responsible
with the leaders, who strongly objected to shifting any portion of
their responsibility upon others, and who desired to stand with those
who were prepared to bear the brunt of the charge. To them the
suggestion to plead guilty was as gall and wormwood, and was regarded
as another humiliation which they were required to endure, another
climbing-down similar to the disarmament, and attended, like it, with
exasperating and baffling complications and involvements that made
refusal an impossibility. The one call to which these men would
respond was the call to stand together and have no divisions--a cause
for which they were still to make many sacrifices. The irony of it
was that in order to 'stand together' they had to agree to
segregation.

Dr. Coster would accept no further modification or variation of his
terms--there was no option to individuals to plead not guilty and
fight it out, except at the cost of involving all the others, nor was
there any option to them to plead with the leaders. One other factor
in the determination of this policy remains to be noted. The
communications already recorded as having passed between some of the
members of the Reform Committee and Dr. Jameson, after the latter had
actually invaded the country, and some evidence as to the
arrangements made for the reception and camping of his force, were in
the hands of the Government, and these were sufficient to convict
every member of the Reform Committee under count 2 of the indictment
in a trial before a Boer jury and by a special judge. Conviction
under count 1 was assured by the letter of invitation and the
admissions in the 'privileged' meeting with the Government
Commission. Conviction under count 2 would be a distinct aggravation
of the position of the four--or so it seemed then--whilst it would be
a most serious thing for the rank and file; and it was finally
decided to plead in accordance with the suggestion of the State
Attorney. The decision was conveyed to this gentleman and by him to
the President, who expressed his 'satisfaction' at a course which
would enable him to 'deal magnanimously with the prisoners,' no doubt
in pursuance of the policy of 'Forget and Forgive.' When, as a
convincing proof of the wisdom of the decision to plead guilty,
the 'satisfaction' of the President was made known to the
Irreconcilables, they remarked that this was the worst sign that
they had yet detected, but others were more hopeful.

As to the soundness of the advice on which the prisoners pleaded, it
may be observed that Messrs. Gregorowski and Coster have both since
then expressed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to
convict one and all of high treason, and they should know what would
have been considered 'sufficient.' The latter added that the prime
movers were of course guilty; but they at any rate had tried to stop
Jameson, whilst those who joined the Reform Committee in the later
stages were morally worse, since they had only joined when and
because they knew that he had invaded the country. Mr. Gregorowski,
at a later stage, defended his sentence on the leaders, but feared he
had been 'far too lenient with the others.' It would be unfair
therefore to suggest that the advice on which the prisoners had
decided to act was other than sound wise and proper in the
circumstances. That it should afterwards appear that the other
parties to the arrangement had acted with deliberate duplicity and
bad faith cannot be laid as a charge against the gentlemen who gave
this advice, and whose only fault, if fault it be, was that their
instincts, their principles, and their training precluded the
suspicion of treachery.

The trial commenced on April 24, when the prisoners were arraigned,
after which an adjournment was made until the 27th, in order to allow
three of the prisoners who were then travelling up to take their
trial to arrive. On the latter date, all being present, and pleas of
guilty having been recorded, the State Attorney put in the cipher
telegrams, the minutes of the 'privileged' meeting between the
Government Commission and the deputation of the Reform Committee,
none of which had been produced in evidence, and the record of
evidence taken at the preliminary examination. Mr. Wessels then read
and put in the following statement of the four leaders:

For a number of years endeavours have been made to obtain by
constitutional means the redress of the grievances under which the
Uitlander population labours. The new-comer asked for no more than is
conceded to emigrants by all the other Governments in South
Africa, under which every man may, on reasonable conditions, become a
citizen of the State; whilst here alone a policy is pursued by which
the first settlers retain the exclusive right of government.

Petitions supported by the signatures of some 40,000 men were
ignored; and when it was found that we could not get a fair and
reasonable hearing, that provisions already deemed obnoxious and
unfair were being made more stringent, and that we were being
debarred for ever from obtaining the rights which in other countries
are freely granted, it was realized that we would never get redress
until we should make a demonstration of force to support our claims.

Certain provision was made regarding arms and ammunition, and a
letter was written to Dr. Jameson, in which he was asked to come to
our aid under certain circumstances.

On December 26 the Uitlanders' Manifesto was published, and it was
then our intention to make a final appeal for redress at the public
meeting which was to have been held on January 6. In consequence of
matters that came to our knowledge we sent on December 26 Major Heany
(by train via Kimberley), and Captain Holden across country, to
forbid any movement on Dr. Jameson's part.

On the afternoon of Monday, December 30, we learnt from Government
sources that Dr. Jameson had crossed the frontier. We assumed that he
had come in good faith to help us, probably misled by some of the
exaggerated rumours which were then in circulation. We were
convinced, however, that the Government and the burghers would not in
the excitement of the moment believe that we had not invited Dr.
Jameson in, and there was no course open to us but to prepare to
defend ourselves if we were attacked, and at the same time to spare
no effort to effect a peaceful settlement.

It became necessary to form some organization for the protection of
the town and the maintenance of order; since, in the excitement
caused by the news of Dr. Jameson's coming, serious disturbances
would be likely to occur, and it was evident that the Government
organization could not deal with the people without serious risks of
conflict.

The Reform Committee was formed on Monday night, December 30, and it
was intended to include such men of influence as cared to associate
themselves with the movement. The object with which it was formed is
best shown by its first notice, viz.:

'Notice is hereby given that this Committee adheres to the National
Union Manifesto, and reiterates its desire to maintain the
independence of the Republic. The fact that rumours are in course of
circulation to the effect that a force has crossed the Bechuanaland
border renders it necessary to take active steps for the defence
of Johannesburg and preservation of order. The Committee earnestly
desire that the inhabitants should refrain from taking any action
which can be construed as an overt act of hostility against the
Government. By order of the Committee,

'J. PERCY FITZPATRICK,
'_Secretary_.'

The evidence taken at the preliminary examination will show that
order was maintained by this Committee during a time of intense
excitement, and through the action of the Committee no aggressive
steps whatever were taken against the Government, but on the
contrary, the property of the Government was protected, and its
officials were not interfered with.

It is our firm belief that had no such Committee been formed, the
intense excitement caused by Dr. Jameson's entry would have brought
about utter chaos in Johannesburg.

It has been alleged that we armed natives. This is absolutely untrue,
and is disposed of by the fact that during the crisis upwards of
20,000 white men applied to us for arms and were unable to get them.

On Tuesday morning, December 31, we hoisted the flag of the Z.A.R.,
and every man bound himself to maintain the independence of the
Republic. On the same day the Government withdrew its police
voluntarily from the town and we preserved perfect order.

During the evening of that day, Messrs. Marais and Malan presented
themselves as delegates from the Executive Council. They came (to use
their own words) to 'offer us the olive branch,' and they told us
that if we would send a deputation to Pretoria to meet a Commission
appointed by the Government, we should probably obtain 'practically
all that we asked for in the Manifesto.'

Our deputation met the Government Commission, consisting of Chief
Justice Kotzé, Judge Ameshof, and Mr. Kock, member of the Executive.

On our behalf our deputation frankly avowed knowledge of Jameson's
presence on the border, and of his intention, by written arrangement
with us, to assist us in case of extremity.

With the full knowledge of this arrangement, with the knowledge that
we were in arms and agitating for our rights, the Government
Commission handed to us a resolution by the Executive Council, of
which the following is the purport:

'The High Commissioner has offered his services with a view to a
peaceful settlement. The Government of the South African Republic has
accepted his offer. Pending his arrival, no hostile step will be
taken against Johannesburg, provided Johannesburg takes no hostile
action against the Government. In terms of a certain proclamation
recently issued by the President, the grievances will be earnestly
considered.'

We acted in perfect good faith with the Government, believing it to
be their desire, as it was ours, to avert bloodshed, and believing it
to be their intention to give us the redress which was implied in the
'earnest consideration of grievances.'

There can be no better evidence of our earnest endeavour to repair
what we regarded as a mistake on the part of Dr. Jameson than the
following offer which our deputation, authorized by resolution of the
Committee, laid before the Government Commission:

'If the Government will permit Dr. Jameson to come into Johannesburg
unmolested, the Committee will guarantee, with their persons if
necessary, that he will leave again peacefully as soon as possible.'

We faithfully carried out the agreement that we should commit no act
of hostility against the Government; we ceased all active operations
for the defence of the town against any attack, and we did everything
in our power to prevent any collision with the burghers--an attempt
in which our efforts were happily successful.

On the telegraphic advice of the result of the interview of the
deputation with the Government Commission, we despatched Mr. Lace, a
member of our Committee, as an escort to the courier carrying the
High Commissioner's despatch to Dr. Jameson, in order to assure
ourselves that the despatch would reach its destination.

On the following Saturday, January 4, the High Commissioner arrived
in Pretoria. On Monday, the sixth, the following telegram was sent to
us:

'Pretoria, _January 6, 1896._

'_From_ H.M.'s AGENT _to_ REFORM COMMITTEE, _Johannesburg._

'_January 6._--I am directed to inform you that the High Commissioner
met the President, the Executive, and the Judges to-day. The President
announced the decision of the Government to be that Johannesburg must
lay down its arms unconditionally as a [condition] precedent to a
discussion and consideration of grievances. The High Commissioner
endeavoured to obtain some indication of the steps which would be
taken in the event of disarmament, but without success, it being
intimated that the Government had nothing more to say on this subject
than had already been embodied in the President's proclamation. The
High Commissioner inquired whether any decision had been come to as
regards the disposal of the prisoners, and received a reply in the
negative. The President said that as his burghers, to the number of
8,000, had been collected and could not be asked to remain
indefinitely, he must request a reply "Yes" or "No" to this ultimatum
within twenty-four hours.'

On the following day Sir Jacobus de Wet, H.M.'s Agent, met us in