committee, and handed to us the following wire from his Excellency
the High Commissioner:

'HIGH COMMISSIONER, _Pretoria, to_ SIR J. DE WET, _Johannesburg._

'_Received Johannesburg 7.36 a.m., January 7, 1896._

'_Urgent_--You should inform the Johannesburg people that I consider
that if they lay down their arms they will be acting loyally and
honourably, and that if they do not comply with my request they
forfeit all claim to sympathy from Her Majesty's Government, and from
British subjects throughout the world, as the lives of Jameson and
prisoners are practically in their hands.'

On this, and the assurance given in the Executive Council resolution,
we laid down our arms on January 6, 7, and 8; on the 9th we were
arrested, and have since been under arrest at Pretoria, a period of
three and a half months.

We admit responsibility for the action taken by us. We frankly avowed
it at the time of the negotiations with the Government, when we were
informed that the services of the High Commissioner had been accepted
with a view to a peaceful settlement.

We submit that we kept faith in every detail in the arrangement with
the Government; that we did all that was humanly possible to protect
both the State and Dr. Jameson from the consequence of his action;
that we have committed no breach of the law which was not known to
the Government at the time that the earnest consideration of our
grievances was promised.

We can only now lay the bare facts before the Court, and submit to
the judgment that may be passed upon us.


(Signed)       LIONEL PHILLIPS.
FRANCIS RHODES.
GEORGE FARRAR.

Pretoria, April 24, 1896.

I entirely concur with the above statement.


(Signed)       JOHN HAYS HAMMOND.

Pretoria, April 27, 1896.

An incident which occurred during the reading of this statement
enabled the prisoners to realize how poor would have been their
chance of a fair trial before a Boer jury. On the right hand of the
judge seats had been reserved for higher officials. Several members
of the Executive were present in this quarter, and amongst them in a
very prominent position and facing the quarter reserved for the
burghers sat Mr. Wolmarans, a member of the Executive Council. When
Mr. Wessels came to that portion of the statement referring to the
negotiations with the Executive Council, Mr. Wolmarans at first
smiled superciliously, then turned and addressed a remark to one of
his colleagues, shrugging his shoulder at the same time, and at the
conclusion of the reference looked across the room to where the
jurymen sat, still smiling and shaking his head slowly and
continuously for half a minute. To men accustomed to the decencies of
British Courts of Justice this incident was rather revolting. When it
is remembered that the Government refused to produce the minute
referred to, and that through their representatives they claimed
'privilege' for the interview at which it was given, in order to
absolve themselves from appearing in Court, and that Mr. Wolmarans
himself sent the message to the Rand that the Government by the
withdrawal of its police gave practical evidence of holding out the
olive-branch, his conduct appears the more unprincipled.

The State Attorney in a purely formal address, in consonance with his
promise to Mr. Wessels not to seek exemplary punishment, asked for
punishment according to law. Mr. Wessels in reply made an eloquent
appeal on behalf of the accused and recited the circumstances which
led to their seeking redress in the manner in which they did. He
referred to the negotiations with the Government, to the part played
by the Reform Committee in the maintenance of order, to the fidelity
with which they had fulfilled their undertakings with the Government,
and to their attitude towards Dr. Jameson. His references to the
Government and to the existing abuses were made as judiciously as
possible. He referred candidly to the relationship with Dr. Jameson,
especially alluding to the efforts made to protect him from the
results of his own action and to stand by him even at the cost of
personal sacrifice, and claimed that such action towards their former
colleague within the limits set by them did not necessarily imply
treason against the independence of the State, but should fairly
entitle the prisoners to sympathy for their efforts to save a quondam
colleague, however wrong he might have been. On the point of law, Mr.
Wessels claimed that the Thirty-three Articles formed the basis of
the State's law, that there was specific provision for such cases as
this in those Articles, and that the punishment to be meted out to
the prisoners should be in accordance with these statutes, modified
as the Court in its judgment might deem fit. No sooner had Mr.
Wessels resumed his seat than Dr. Coster, as was then thought,
repenting the fulfilment of his promise and casting off all disguise,
or, as is more probable, carried away by an over-mastering excitement
and strong personal and racial feeling and stimulated by
concentration upon one aspect only of the case, claimed the right to
address the Court again after the advocate for the defence had
spoken. Dr. Coster has the reputation among those who know him of
being a thoroughly honourable and straight-forward gentleman. As a
Hollander no doubt he felt deeply in a matter in which Hollanderism
was the _casus belli_; as public prosecutor it was his duty to
prosecute, not to judge; and one prefers to think that in peculiar
and trying circumstances he forgot the pledge he had given and
remembered only the cause of his party. In a short but very violent
speech he depicted in the blackest terms the actions of the men
against whom he had agreed not to seek exemplary punishment, and
pointing out the provisions of the Roman-Dutch law, claimed that the
Court should apply it in this case in preference to the statutes of
the country, and demanded from the Court the severest possible
penalty which could be imposed under that law and under the
Thirty-three Articles and the Gold Law as well. With reference to the
last-named, Dr. Coster having mentioned the provision regarding the
confiscation of property, said that upon this point he would not
speak but would leave the matter to the judgment of the Court. The
Court was then adjourned until the morning of the 28th, ostensibly in
order to enable the judge to consider the evidence and make up his
mind.

The majority of the prisoners, utterly unsuspicious of what lay
before them, made all necessary arrangements to return to their homes
and avocations upon the conclusion of the trial, believing that a
nominal fine would be the penalty imposed. Many of them had taken
return tickets from Johannesburg available for two days. The public
throughout the Transvaal and South Africa anticipated nothing more
than a nominal punishment upon the majority and a fine of a few
thousand pounds upon the signatories to the letter of invitation.

Some of the prisoners however were better informed. News had been
obtained some days before the trial commenced that extra
accommodation was being prepared in the gaol, avowedly to provide for
the Reformers. Two of the accused visited the gaol and verified this.
Others of the accused, few in number, were informed by personal
friends who had special means of getting information in Pretoria that
imprisonment would be the lot of all and that the punishment on the
leaders would be extremely severe; and they provided for this
contingency accordingly. The manager of the Government newspaper in
Pretoria informed two or three of those interested that the sentence
of death would be passed upon the four leaders, as this had been
arranged; and men closely associated with the leaders themselves had
been confidentially informed beforehand that it was the intention of
the Government to pass sentence of death, and that the matter was a
cut-and-dried one. The information was given with a view to preparing
the prisoners for what awaited them.

On approaching the temporary Court-house (the Pretoria Market
Buildings having been altered for this purpose) on the morning of the
sentence, it was perfectly evident that some serious development was
afoot. The town was thronged with mounted burghers, State artillery,
and mounted and foot police. Every approach to the Court was guarded
and the streets were patrolled. Most of the population of Pretoria
were gathered in the Market Square, endeavouring to gain admittance
to the Court. The prisoners were arranged in their former places in a
special quarter of the building railed off for the purpose, with the
exception of Messrs. Phillips, Farrar, Rhodes and Hammond, who
were separated from the rest and placed in a special movable dock,
which had been carried in over the heads of the people after the hour
appointed for the sitting of the Court. The appearance of this dock
was recognized by all to be ominous, but some relief from the feeling
of foreboding was experienced when Judge Gregorowski after taking his
seat was observed to smile several times and to make some jocular
remark to one of the officials of the Court. The faces of the
officials however damped any hopes that were built upon the judge's
genial appearance.

Many of these gentlemen were personal and intimate friends of the
prisoners: some were connected by closer ties; and one of the most
trying experiences for the prisoners was to witness the complete
breakdown of the minor officials employed in the carrying out of this
tragic farce. The judge's first order was for the removal of all
ladies. The wives and relatives of many of the prisoners had been
warned by them beforehand of what was likely to happen and had
accordingly absented themselves, but there were nevertheless a good
number of ladies present. Judge Gregorowski then took the case in
hand, passed in review the circumstances, and dealt with much of the
evidence, including that taken at the preliminary examination and the
documents put in by Government which had not yet been seen by the
prisoners' advisers. He made no reference to the statement of the
principal accused, subject to which their plea of guilty had been
made and accepted. He reviewed the law, and by a method of reasoning
which has not commended itself to others he justified himself for
setting aside special statutes and applying the Roman-Dutch law
instead. In conclusion, he stated that he held the signatories of the
letter to be directly responsible for the shedding of the burghers'
blood at Doornkop, that he would therefore pass upon them the _only
punishment possible_ under Roman-Dutch law--namely death, and that
whatever hope there might be in the merciful hearts of the Executive
Council and in the President's great magnanimity, they should
remember that in no other country would they have the slightest
grounds for hope. The usual question as to whether there were any
reasons why sentence of death should not be passed upon them having
been put and the usual reply in the negative having been received, in
the midst of silence that was only disturbed by the breaking down of
persons in various parts of the hall--officials, burghers, and in the
general public--sentence of death was passed, first on Mr. Lionel
Phillips, next on Colonel Rhodes, then on Mr. George Farrar, and
lastly on Mr. Hammond. The bearing of the four men won for them
universal sympathy and approval, especially under the conditions
immediately following the death sentence, when a most painful scene
took place in Court. Evidences of feeling came from all parts of the
room and from all classes of people: from those who conducted the
defence and from the Boers who were to have constituted the jury. The
interpreter translating the sentence broke down. Many of the minor
officials lost control of themselves, and feelings were further
strained by the incident of one man falling insensible.

Sentence was next passed upon the other prisoners. They were
condemned to suffer two years' imprisonment, to pay a fine of £2,000
each, or as an alternative suffer another year's imprisonment, and
thereafter to be banished from the State for a period of three years.
It was added that the question of confiscation of their property
would be one for the Executive to deal with.

The action of Mr. Gregorowski has been variously described, but at no
time more graphically than at the time of the sentence, when a
sergeant of police who was guarding the prisoners exclaimed in the
peculiar Dutch idiom: 'My God! he is like a dog: he has bitten and
chewed and guzzled!'

After passing the minor sentences the judge gave a short address to
the burghers, in which he thanked them for their attendance and made
allusion with evident signs of satisfaction to the manner in which
the trial had been brought to a conclusion. A long delay followed
during which the judge proceeded to note his judgments. Once his
attention was drawn by a remark of an official to which he replied
promptly, at the same time breaking into a broad smile, but suddenly
recollecting the circumstances and the presence of the men sentenced
to death, placed his hand over his mouth and wiped the smile away.
The incident was of course noticed by many people in Court and helped
to strengthen the impression which a limited but sufficient
experience of Mr. Gregorowski had already created.

If the belief which now obtains, that the Reformers were enticed to
plead guilty and misled as to the probable consequences of that plea,
should outlive personal feelings and leave a permanent mark in South
African history, it will be because it survives a searching test. In
South Africa--as in many other countries--it is the invariable
practice of the Courts to decline to accept the plea of guilty to a
capital charge. The prisoner is informed that as the plea involves
capital punishment it will not be accepted; and a formal trial and
sufficient evidence of the crime are required by the Court. That is
done even in cases where the prisoner knows what the punishment will
be! In the case of the Reformers the State Attorney had, it is true,
informed Mr. Wessels that he would be obliged _pro forma_ to put in
certain evidence, but the reason was not given, and Mr. Wessels
regarded it merely as the _quid pro quo_ for accepting unquestioned
the written statement of the four accused! Mr. Gregorowski in
defending his sentence has stated that under Roman-Dutch law he had
no option but to pass sentence of death. Yet contrary to the custom
with which seventeen years' practice had made him familiar he
accepted the plea of guilty--and accepted it without a word of
explanation or of warning! Is it surprising that people should want
to know why?

The men were removed from Court under very heavy escort, the
condemned men being conveyed in a closed carriage and the rest of the
prisoners being marched through the streets to the gaol, the whole
party moving at a foot pace. A little incident at the start did not
fail to attract attention. The officer commanding a section of the
guard having issued his orders in Dutch and some confusion having
ensued, the orders were repeated _in German_, with a satisfactory
result.

One more incident--trifling perhaps in itself but leaving an
ineffaceable impression--occurred during the march to the gaol. As
the prisoners slowly approached the Government buildings, Dr. Leyds
accompanied by one friend walked out until within a few yards of the
procession of sentenced men (a great proportion of whom were
personally well known to him) and stood there with his hands in his
pockets smiling at them as they went past. The action was so
remarkable, the expression on the State Secretary's face so
unmistakable, that the Dutch guards accompanying the prisoners
expressed their disgust. His triumph no doubt was considerable; but
the enjoyment must have been short-lived if the accounts given by
other members of the Executive of his behaviour a month later are
to be credited. The man who stood in safety and smiled in the faces
of his victims was the same Dr. Leyds who within a month became
seriously ill because some fiery and impetuous friend of the
prisoners sent him an anonymous letter with a death's head and
cross-bones; who as a result obtained from Government a guard over
his private house; and who thereafter proceeded about his duties in
Pretoria under armed escort.

It is stated that the death sentence was commuted the same afternoon,
but no intimation of this was given to the prisoners and no public
announcement was made until twenty-four hours later. In spite of the
vindictive urgings of the Hollander newspaper, the _Volksstem_, few
could believe that the death sentence would be carried out and most
people recognized that the ebullitions of that organ expressed the
feelings of only a few rabid and witless individuals among the
Hollanders themselves and were viewed with disgust by the great
majority of them. At the same time the scene in court had been such
as to show that the Government party--the officials and Boers then
present--had not regarded the death sentence as a mere formality, but
had, on the contrary, viewed it as a deliberate and final judgment.
In such circumstances therefore it can be believed that the prisoners
themselves were not without misgivings.


Footnotes for Chapter VIII

{33} Died in prison.

{34} Unable, owing to illness, to stand trial
with the others. On recovery, Mr. Curtis returned to the Transvaal,
and decided to plead 'not guilty,' whereupon proceedings were
dropped.




CHAPTER IX.

LIFE IN GAOL.


In the Transvaal no distinction is made between ordinary criminals
and those who in other countries are recognized as first-class
misdemeanants. Consequently the Reformers, without regard to the
nature of their offence, their habits, health, age, or condition,
were handed over to the gaoler, Du Plessis, a relative of President
Kruger, to be dealt with at his kind discretion. For two days the
prisoners existed on the ordinary prison fare. The majority being men
in the early prime of life and in excellent health, suffered no ill
effects, preferring to do with little or no food rather than touch
that which was doled out to them; but to the others it was a rather
serious thing. There were several men between fifty and sixty years
of age whose lives had been spent under favourable conditions. There
were some suffering from consumption, one from diabetes, one from
fever, one from dysentery, and several others from less dangerous but
sufficiently serious complaints. All alike were compelled to sleep
upon the floor, with two thin blankets for protection. They were
locked in at 6 p.m., and allowed out at 6 a.m. Sanitary accommodation
was represented by the presence of a couple of buckets in the
sleeping room. The air-space per man worked out at 145 cubic feet as
against 900 feet prescribed by English prison regulations.
Ventilation was afforded on the one side by square holes cut in the
corrugated iron walls of the shed,{35} and on the other (the
buildings being lean-to's against the permanent prison buildings)
by grated windows opening into the native cells. Needless to say,
these grated windows were originally intended to afford ventilation
to the native cells, but the buildings to accommodate the Reformers
had been erected against the side-walls of the Kaffir quarters. The
stench was indescribable. At 6 a.m. the prisoners were allowed out
into the yard, where they had the option of exercising throughout the
day. The lavatories and bathing arrangements consisted of a tap in
the yard and an open furrow through which the town water ran, the
lower end of which was used as a wash-place by prisoners, white and
black alike. Within a foot or two of the furrow where alone washing
of the person or of clothing was allowed stood the gaol urinals.
There was neither adequate provision in this department nor any
attempt at proper supervision, the result being that through
irregularities, neglect, and defective arrangement the ground on both
sides of the water-furrow for six or eight yards was horribly stained
and saturated by leakage. Many of the prisoners could not approach
this quarter without being physically ill. Without further detail it
may be stated that there were at that time over 250 prisoners, about
100 of whom were white. There were three closets and six buckets for
the accommodation of all, and removals took place sometimes once a
day, sometimes once in every four days. Nothing but the horror of
such conditions, and the fact that they prevail still in Pretoria
Gaol, and presumably in other gaols more removed from critical
supervision, could warrant allusions to such a disgusting state of
affairs.

At 6.15 breakfast was served. A number of tin dishes, containing one
pound of mealie-meal porridge (ground maize) each were placed in a
row on the ground in the yard in the same manner as a dog's food
might be set out. A bucket near by contained some coarse salt in the
condition in which it was collected in the natural salt pans, the
cubes varying from the size of peas to the size of acorns. No sugar,
milk, tea, or coffee, was allowed. In order to utilize the salt the
prisoners were obliged to crush it with rough stones on the cement
steps. Needless to say, but few partook of this food. To those who
had not tasted it before in the course of prospecting or up-country
travelling where conditions are sometimes very hard, it was no
more possible to swallow it than to eat sawdust.

Dinner was at twelve o'clock, and it consisted of coarse meat boiled
to that degree which was calculated to qualify the water in which it
was boiled to be called soup, without depriving the meat of all title
to be considered a separate dish. With this meal was also served half
a pound of bread. Supper, which was provided at five o'clock, was
exactly the same as breakfast.

Two days of this fare told very severely upon those whose physical
condition was not of the best. By the third day several of the older
men and those in ill-health had broken down and were placed on
hospital fare. Matters were sufficiently serious to induce the
authorities to allow gradual amelioration of the conditions, and by
degrees food of a better class was introduced. Mattresses and other
articles of bedding were allowed, but stretchers although provided
for in the prison regulations were denied to the men until a few
hours before their release a month later, when the prisoners were
permitted by the gaoler to purchase them, no doubt with an eye to
reversion to him in the course of a few hours. From time to time the
regulations as to food were varied at the whim of the gaoler. On one
day only cooked food would be allowed in; on another only raw food;
on a third nothing but tinned stuff; on a fourth all was turned back
at the gates with the exception of that obtained by a few individuals
at a heavy premium.

A day or two after the passing of sentence representations were made
to the prisoners, excluding the four death-sentence men, that it
would be advisable to appeal to the clemency of the Government for
some mitigation. In that case, it was stated, there was every reason
to believe that the sentence of imprisonment would be entirely
remitted and that the sentence of banishment would also be commuted.
The individuals from whom this suggestion first came were of the
class which habitually trades between the Government and the
public--the gentlemen of the backstairs. For this reason some of the
prisoners gave considerable credence to the reports, whilst others
for the very same reason would have nothing whatever to do with them.
Hence arose a condition of things very like a deadlock among the
prisoners themselves. It was represented by these agents that it
would be worse than useless for some of the prisoners to petition if
many others refused to do so and stood out. Some of the prisoners did
actually petition--a course of action which was strongly condemned by
others; but it should be borne in mind that there were among the
prisoners many men who were in bad health and poor circumstances, who
had heavy responsibilities in private life, and who were not only
unable to pay their fines, but even unable to make any provision for
their families during incarceration. Such conditions would tend to
shake the nerve of most men.

With this nucleus to work upon the Government through their agents
began a system of terrorism by which they hoped to establish
conditions under which their 'magnanimity by inches' would appear in
the most favourable possible light. The first petition presented for
the signature of the prisoners was one in which they were asked to
admit the justice of their sentences, to express regret for what they
had done and to promise to behave themselves in the future. The
document closed with an obsequious and humiliating appeal to the
'proved magnanimity of the Government.' The reception accorded to
this was distinctly unfavourable, copies of the petitions being in
some instances torn up and flung in the faces of those who presented
them. The great majority of the prisoners refused to have anything to
do with them, and on representing the view that any appeal so couched
was not consistent with their self-respect, they were informed that
the petition had already been shown to the President and members of
the Executive Council and had been approved by them and that it would
not look well to alter it now.

Every effort was made for some days to induce the prisoners to sign
this document, but they refused. A certain number of the men were
opposed to signing anything whatever, even the most formal appeal to
the Executive Council for a revision of sentence. They based their
refusal upon two reasons: 1st, that they had been arrested by an act
of treachery and tried by a packed Court, and if the Executive
recognized the injustice of the sentence they might act
spontaneously without petition from the prisoners; 2nd, that they
believed that any document however moderate which they might sign
would only be the thin end of the wedge by which the Government hoped
to introduce the principle of individual statements and pleas--that
is to say each one to excuse himself at the expense of his neighbour,
and thus enable the authorities to establish by the prisoners' own
confessions the extent of the guilt and complicity which they had
been unable to prove.

Under such conditions an appeal was made to Messrs. Rose Innes, Q.C.,
and Solomon, Q.C. These gentlemen had remained in Pretoria and
devoted their time and energies to obtaining some amelioration of the
conditions of imprisonment and some mitigation of the sentences
imposed upon the Reformers. The petition as presented by the
Government was shown to Mr. Innes, who indignantly rejected the
suggestion of signing any such document. As the strongest reason
adduced in favour of signing petitions was the statement that
according to law and custom it was impossible for the Government to
take cognizance of the prisoners' case even with every desire to
mitigate the punishment unless it was brought before them by direct
appeal, Mr. Innes undertook to see the President and Chief-Justice
Kotzé on the subject. By this time further suggestions had been made
on the subject of petitions, and the prisoners were being urged among
other things to name in plain terms the extent and manner in which
they would like their sentences commuted. This proposal was regarded
as a preposterous and ridiculous one; but nothing is too ridiculous
for Pretoria and it was necessary to deal seriously with it.

In these circumstances, Mr. Rose Innes interviewed the Chief Justice,
in order to get the highest authority in the country as a guide. Mr.
Kotzé would not at first express an opinion as to whether petitions
should be sent in, but he was evidently inclined to recommend them as
politic, 'But,' said Mr. Innes, 'it is not a question of policy; it
is a matter of law. Is there anything in the law which renders it
necessary for a prisoner to petition before his sentence may be
revised by the Executive--anything which debars the Executive from
dealing with his case if he does not petition?' Mr. Kotzé's answer
was clear: 'No, certainly not--nothing whatever!'

In the interview with the President which took place immediately
after this Mr. Innes was brusquely informed that petitions from the
prisoners were of no value, and would receive no consideration; that
the President did not want any of their petitions; and that he was
guided solely by his burghers, who had already petitioned in the
matter. 'I would pay more heed,' said Mr. Kruger, 'to a petition from
fifty of my burghers than to one from the whole of Johannesburg.' At
the conclusion of an unpleasant interview, which called for all the
tact and good temper at the command of the gentleman who was
interesting himself on behalf of the prisoners, the President added
in an offhand manner, 'The petitions can do no harm and might
strengthen my hands in dealing with the rest of the Executive; so
they can send them in if they like.'

With this answer Messrs. Innes and Solomon returned to the gaol, and
after informing the prisoners of what had taken place advised them,
under the circumstances, to make a formal but respectful appeal for a
revision of the sentences. It was their opinion, based upon the
information which they had at great pains gathered, and it was also
the opinion of the Chief Justice, that no petition was necessary, and
that the sentences would be brought under the consideration of the
Executive by the memorials of the burghers; but they considered that
as interested persons or indiscreet friends had already suggested the
idea of petitions, and as a refusal now to sign anything might have a
very unfavourable effect upon persons with the disposition and
character of those with whom they had to deal, it would be advisable
to make an appeal so worded as to formally comply with the
requirements of the extreme party in the Executive; one which would
satisfy those of the prisoners who were in favour of appealing, and
would not be offensive to those who were against petitions at any
cost.

The strongest reason for urging this was to preserve unanimity of
action among the prisoners. The course was in fact a compromise
designed to satisfy those who considered a petition of some sort to
be necessary, and those who would not as they expressed it
'sacrifice their self-respect' by asking for anything from the
people who had treated them in what they deemed to be a dishonest
and treacherous manner.

All the prisoners except Messrs. A. Woolls-Sampson and W.D. (Karri)
Davies agreed to this: many did so much against their own wishes
because of the appeal to stand together, and because it was strongly
urged that their obstinacy would affect not only themselves but would
prevent the liberation of others whose circumstances were almost
desperate. They yielded--it is true--but remained unconvinced. To
Messrs. Sampson and Davies the answers of the Chief Justice and the
President are now of considerable importance, since the reason given
for their detention involves the repudiation of the assurances given
by the President and Chief Justice.

Those who had not signed any other form of appeal now made a formal
application to have their sentences brought into review by the
Executive Council. They stated then their belief that it was only the
beginning of the petition business that it would be wholly
ineffective and that it was to be understood that they would sign no
more under any circumstances. This application was deemed by the
emissaries of the Government to be sufficient to comply with the
requirements, and promises were conveyed to the prisoners that the
sentences would be at once taken into consideration and commutations
announced. In the course of a day or two however further demands were
made, and the prisoners were informed that they would be dressed in
prison garb under severer regulations specially passed for them
unless they at once petitioned against this course.

Again Mr. Innes represented their case to the Government at the
dictate of his own feelings of humanity, and not prompted thereto by
the prisoners themselves, most of whom would have been glad to see
the Government wreak their vengeance in petty and vindictive
provisions. The proposed alterations were however abandoned without
protest from the prisoners after the supply of convict garb had been
sent up to the gaol. So matters went on day by day, each day bringing
its fresh instalment of threats promises and cajoleries, each
morning its batch of disappointments. It was at first difficult to
say what object the Government had in view in endeavouring to compel
the Reformers to sign petitions, unless it were the unworthy one of
desiring to humiliate men who were already down, or the perhaps
more contemptible one of forcing them to turn informers by a process
of self-excusing and thus enable them to differentiate in the
commutations. The fact remained that repeated efforts were made and
pressure brought to bear upon the men to induce them to sign. One
pretext after another was used. Finally the naked truth came out: the
Government required each man to state in an individual declaration
the extent of his guilt the extenuating facts and the circumstances
under which he became associated with the Reform movement. This was
exactly what had been foretold by men who understood Boer methods.

The means resorted to by the gaol officials to enforce this
petition-signing were characteristic. The gaoler (Du Plessis) is one
of the most unfavourable specimens of his race. Unscrupulous and
brutal in his methods, untrustworthy as to his undertakings, and
violent and uncertain in his temper, he singled out those among the
prisoners whom he considered to be the leaders of the 'stiff-necked'
party as he termed it, and treated them with as much severity as he
could. These men found themselves unable to obtain those facilities
which were regarded as the right of all the prisoners. Upon occasion
their food was stopped at the gates, and visitors--their wives and
families--were refused admission, although provided with permits from
the proper authorities and complying with the gaol regulations; and
on more than one occasion he informed individual members of this
party that the 'petitions would have to be signed,' that they would
have to 'go down on their knees to the Government,' otherwise they
would 'rot in gaol.' All this undisguised eagerness to obtain the
signatures naturally only strengthened the resolution of the men who
stood out. They had already against their wishes and judgment signed
one application, and more than that they refused to do. When it was
found to be impossible to induce the men to inform against each
other, some modification was made in the demands of the
petition-hunters and some prisoners were asked and induced to make
statements concerning their own part in the late movement, making no
allusion to the part played by others, and, for reasons which it is
impossible to divine unless it was designed to lead to something
more, this was regarded by the Government as a desirable step.

The suspense and disappointment added to the original sentence upon a
man who was never even mentioned in evidence and who took no part in
the Reform movement, beyond associating himself with the
organizations for the protection of property in Johannesburg, told so
severely upon one of the prisoners that his mind became unhinged, and
in the course of the following period he developed marked signs of
homicidal and suicidal mania. His condition was so serious that
strong representations were made to all the officials connected with
the gaol--the gaoler himself, the district surgeon, the commissioner
of police, and the landdrost of Pretoria. The prisoners themselves
organized a system of guards or watches over their comrade, pending
the result of their representations to the officials. On the fourth
day however the unfortunate man, driven out of his mind by the
constant and cruel disappointment of purposely raised hopes, eluding
the watchfulness of his friends took his own life.

The news of this event was received with horror throughout South
Africa, the more so as for some days previously the newspapers had
hinted at some such impending catastrophe. In the course of the
inquiry which was held evidence was given showing that the gaol
surgeon had reported the state of affairs to the proper authorities
some days before, but in a formal and half-hearted way. Evidence
however was forthcoming that four of the prisoners (themselves
medical men) had forcibly represented the extreme seriousness of the
case to the gaoler, the gaol surgeon and the landdrost of Pretoria,
and had induced the assistant-gaoler and warders to support their
representations, but all without avail. The result of the inquiry was
to lay partial blame upon the doctor and to acquit everybody else--a
result which the public have been used to expect in the Transvaal. It
is somewhat difficult to see how the decision was arrived at, seeing
that in the offices there was the record of a special pass granted
to the unfortunate man's wife to visit him and remain with him for a
considerable period on the previous day in order to cheer him up
and avert serious consequences. The incident told severely upon the
nerves of those who were not themselves in the best of health, and
it was found necessary immediately to release or remove others among
the prisoners for fear of similar results.

The Government seemed to realize that it was incumbent upon them to
do something in order to allay the feeling of indignation which was
being roused throughout South Africa at their manner of treating the
prisoners, so a further instalment of magnanimity was decided upon.
On the day of the unfortunate affair the manager of the Government
newspaper, _The Press_, was authorized by President Kruger and other
members of the Executive to inform the prisoners that they would have
to make modified personal statements of the nature previously
indicated, and if these petitions were presented to the Executive
Council by 8 a.m. on the following Monday (the prisoners would then
have been three weeks in gaol) orders for their release would be
issued by Monday night. In order to secure a favourable reception of
this suggestion it was arranged that the clergyman who was to conduct
Divine service on Sunday in the gaol would deliver this message from
the President to the prisoners at the conclusion of the service, and
urge the men for their own sakes and for the sake of their families
and of their friends to abandon the position which they had taken up
and to sign declarations of the nature required, and so secure their
release. Nor was this all. Outside the gaol the wives of those men
who stood out against the petition movement were informed by
Government officials that unless the demands of the Government were
complied with by their husbands they would serve the full period of
their sentence. Pressure was brought to bear upon these ladies and
special facilities were given them to visit the gaol, avowedly in
order to bring about the desired end.

Eleven of the prisoners--apart from the four whose punishment in
substitution for death had not been decided upon, and who were
therefore not concerned in the petitions--declined to reconsider
their decision, and elected rather to serve their term of two years;
and they expressed the conviction at the same time that these
promises of the President would not be kept any more than others
had been. The result justified their judgment. After a postponement
of two days on some flimsy pretext the official intimation of the
commutations was given to the prisoners on Wednesday, May 20. Instead
of the release positively and definitely promised the term of
imprisonment was reduced in the following degree: Ten men were
released, twenty-four men were condemned to three months', eighteen
to five months', and four to one year's imprisonment; and the
clemency of the Government towards the four leaders was indicated by
a sentence of fifteen years each.

Even a short period of imprisonment under the existing conditions
meant certain death to a proportion of the men sentenced, and it is
not to be wondered at that the 'magnanimity' displayed by the
Government after the disappointments and delays seriously affected
the health of a number of the men, following as it did closely upon
the tragic affair already alluded to.

With regard to Messrs. Sampson and Davies no decision was announced,
it being intimated by Dr. Leyds that, as they had made no petition,
their case had not been brought before the Government, and the
Executive had therefore no official knowledge of their existence. But
the extent of the Government's magnanimity was even then not fully
known. On the following day it was announced to the prisoners that
they had been misinformed with regard to the five and twelve months'
commutations--that the intention and resolution of the Executive was
merely to grant these men permission to appeal at the end of the
periods named to the aforesaid magnanimity.

Some prominence has been given to the cases of those prisoners who
were unable for physical or other special reasons to withstand the
strain; and it should therefore be made equally clear that in many
cases the men regarded with contemptuous amusement the cat and mouse
policy and the stage-managed magnanimity displayed towards them. They
were perfectly well able and willing to endure the sentence passed
upon them, and they were not misled by Boer promises in which they
had never had any faith at all. There are good reasons to be assigned
for the willingness of many of the men to make appeals to the
Government: sheer hard necessity and the sufferings of those
dependent upon them were among these reasons; and it is unfair to
consider these appeals to have been due to loss of nerve.

There were among the prisoners twenty-three Englishmen, sixteen South
Africans, nine Scotchmen, six Americans, two Welshmen, one Irishman,
one Australian, one Hollander, one Bavarian, one German, one
Canadian, one Swiss, and one Turk. This variety of nationalities
should receive due consideration when questions such as for instance
that of the flag are considered. In this matter of petitions it was
not to be expected that men whose associations with the country had
been limited to a few years should experience the same depth of
feeling and bitterness of resentment as the South Africans born who
look upon the country as their native land and who view with keen
resentment the attitude of the Boers towards them in the Transvaal,
so much at variance with their attitude towards the Boers in the
neighbouring colonies. Nothing could illustrate this difference in
feeling better than the fact that of the eleven men who throughout
declined to sign petitions eight were South African born, one
Australian, one English, and one Scotch. There is nothing
discreditable to others in these figures; they simply indicate the
difference of feeling which did and indeed naturally must exist. The
South African born men consider themselves to have been robbed of a
portion of their birthright; the others have not the same reason for
thinking this.

With men of so many nationalities the position of the British