Resident would in any case have been one of difficulty, especially
after the part played by the High Commissioner. In the case of Sir
Jacobus de Wet very little satisfaction was given. What caused the
most comment and annoyance among the prisoners was that official
representatives of other countries appeared to have unusual
facilities offered them to visit the subjects of their Government--at
least, they could command the ordinary courtesies--whereas in the
case of the British Agent nothing of this sort existed. Frequently he
was observed standing outside the gaol in the worst of weather
without shelter, patiently waiting until the gaoler would deem fit to
see him. In the meantime that official would stroll through the yard,
making remarks to his subordinates indicative of the satisfaction he
experienced in keeping the representative of Her Majesty outside in
the rain and mud. Upon occasions when he was afforded admission he
was hustled through the yard by a warder and not allowed to hold
private conversation with any of the prisoners. On several occasions
he complained that he was refused admission by order of the gaoler,
and the spectacle of England's representative being turned away by an
ignorant and ill-conditioned official like Du Plessis was not an
edifying one. It is only necessary to say that upon an occasion when
Du Plessis adopted the same tactics towards the Portuguese Consul
that gentleman proceeded at once to the Presidency and demanded as
his right free admission to the gaol whenever he chose to go, and the
right was promptly recognized although there was no subject of his
Government at the time within the precincts. Indeed the Portuguese
Consul stated openly that he called for the purpose of visiting as a
friend one of the Reform prisoners, giving the name of one of the
recalcitrants most objectionable to the Government. The American
Consul too carried matters with a high hand on the occasion of his
visit to Pretoria, and it seemed as though the Paramount Power was
the only one which the Transvaal Government could afford or cared to
treat with contempt.

The period of gaol life afforded the Reformers some opportunity of
studying a department of the Transvaal Administration which they had
not before realized to be so badly in need of reform. The system--if
system it can be called--upon which the gaol was conducted may be
gathered from the gaoler's own words. When one of the prisoners had
inquired of him whether a certain treatment to which a white convict
had been subjected was in accordance with the rules of the gaol and
had received an answer in the affirmative, he remarked that he did
not think many of the Reformers could exist under such conditions. Du
Plessis replied: 'Oh no! Not one of you would be alive a month
if the rules were enforced. No white man could stand them. Indeed,'
he added, 'if the rules were _properly_ enforced, not even a nigger
could stand them!'

Some subsequent experience of gaol-life induced the Reformers to
accept this view as tolerably correct. It is known for instance that
after the Malaboch war sixty-four of the tribe were incarcerated in
Pretoria Gaol. Some twenty were subsequently released, but of the
remainder twenty-six died within the year. Bad food vile sanitary
arrangements and want of clothing and shelter contributed to this
end. Malaboch was a petty chief against whom an expedition was
organized, ostensibly because he had refused to pay his taxes. The
expedition is chiefly notorious on account of the commandeering of
British subjects which led to the visit of Sir Henry Loch already
described. It resulted--as these expeditions inevitably do--in the
worsting of the natives, the capture of the chief and his headmen,
and the parcelling out of his tribe as indentured servants among the
Boers.

Considerable sympathy was felt with Malaboch among the Uitlanders,
not because of his refusal to pay taxes but because the opinion
prevailed that this refusal was due only to the tyrannical and
improper conduct of the Boer native commissioners; and a number of
Johannesburg men resolved in the interests of the native and also of
the native labour supply on the Rand to have the matter cleared up at
the forthcoming trial of the chief. Funds were provided and counsel
employed, nominally to defend Malaboch, but really to impeach the
native commissioners, who in many cases were and continue to be a
perfect curse to the country. No sooner had this intended course of
action become known than the Government decided to treat their
prisoners under the provisions of martial law--to treat them, in
fact, as prisoners of war, who were liable to be indefinitely
detained without further trial. Under these conditions they were
placed in the Pretoria Gaol, and with the exception of a few
subordinates there they have lived--or died--since. The offences of
these natives, for all anyone knows, may have been similar to those
of Langalibalele, Dinizulu, Secocoeni, Cetewayo, and other native
chiefs whom the British Government have also disposed of without
trial. But it is urged that these men are entitled to a trial,
because it is well known that the provocation under which they
committed their offences against the law--if indeed any were
committed--was such as, in the minds of most people, would justify
their action.{36}

The position of a native in the Pretoria Gaol is indeed an unhappy
one. Sleeping accommodation--that is to say, shed accommodation--is
provided for about one-quarter of the number confined there. During
fine weather it is no hardship upon the natives to sleep in the open
yard provided that they have some covering. The blankets doled out to
them are however in many cases such as one would not allow to remain
in one's kennels; and in wet or cold weather (and the fact is that
during at least one quarter of the year the nights are cold, whilst
during the five months' wet season rain may fall at any time) the
sufferings of these unfortunates many of whom have no blankets at all
are very severe. Of course the stronger fight their way into the
shed, and even fill the little covered passage-way; the others crouch
or lie about in the open yard like wild beasts without a vestige of
shelter.

On behalf of the native political prisoners representations were made
by the gaol doctor that they were dying in numbers from scurvy and
fever, for want of vegetable food. A special effort on his part
secured for a few days some allowance of this nature, but the matter
having been brought to the notice of General Joubert, the
Superintendent-General of natives, peremptory orders were issued to
discontinue this; and this although the wretched creatures might have
been sufficiently supplied from the gardens attached to the gaol
which are cultivated by the prisoners, and the product of which was
used by the gaoler to feed his pigs. For a little while longer the
doctor continued the vegetable diet at his own expense, but being
unable to afford this it was discontinued and the former death-rate
was resumed.

Floggings are quite common. In many instances white men have been
flogged there. It is not intended to suggest that this should not
have been done, but cases occurred in the Pretoria Gaol which are
surely difficult to justify. Du Plessis stated to the Reform
prisoners that he had with the sanction of the Landdrost inflicted
upon one prisoner named Thompson, who was undoubtedly refractory and
disobedient, _upwards of eighty lashes within three weeks._ He added
that this was as good as a death-sentence, because neither white nor
black could stand two inflictions of twenty-five lashes, as they were
given in Pretoria Gaol, without permanent injury to the constitution.
The effect, he observed, of this severe punishment upon the back was
to cause the blood to rush and settle on the lungs, and in every case
it resulted in fatal lung mischief.

During the period of imprisonment the Reformers witnessed a
considerable number of floggings. These when inflicted by the
assistant-gaoler or warders were usually marked by some kind of
moderation and consideration for the prisoner's physical condition,
and some regard for official decencies. The same cannot be said of
those in which Du Plessis himself took a prominent part. Upon one
occasion when a native had been released from the triangle, after
twenty strokes from the cat had been borne without a murmur, Du
Plessis suddenly became infuriated at the stoicism of his victim, and
stepping towards him knocked the released man down with his fist and
spurned him with his foot. Upon another occasion a boy of ten or
twelve years of age (under what circumstances is not known) was taken
by Du Plessis into the open yard, stretched in mid air by two warders
gripping his wrists and ankles, and flogged with a cane by Du Plessis
himself. The screams of the child were heart-rending and the sight
caused one lady who happened to be visiting in the gaol to faint.
When the wretched urchin was released by the two warders and stood
cowering before Du Plessis the latter repeated his former performance
of knocking his victim down with his closed fist.

Mr. Du Plessis it should be remembered is a sample of a certain class
only of the Boers--not by any means of all. He is a man with a
treacherous and vindictive temper, distinctly unpleasant in
appearance, being coarsely and powerfully built, and enjoying an
expression of countenance which varies between cunning and
insincerity on one hand and undisguised malevolence on the other.
Some idea of the general kindliness of his disposition may be
gathered from his actions. On one occasion, when special
relaxation of the rules was authorized by the Landdrost of Pretoria
in order to enable a number of the Johannesburg friends of the
prisoners to see them, and when about one hundred permits had been
issued by that official to men travelling over from Johannesburg
specially for the purpose, Du Plessis devised means to defeat this
act of consideration, and issued orders to his guards to admit only
three visitors at a time to the gaol. As a consequence, more than
half failed to gain admittance. Nor was he satisfied with this; he
informed the prisoners themselves that he wished the Landdrost had
issued two hundred passes instead of one hundred, so that he might
let those Johannesburg people know who was 'baas' there. Possibly the
fact that on the previous day he had been severely rebuffed in his
petition campaign may have provoked this act of retaliation.

Another instance of Mr. Du Plessis' system was afforded by the case
of an old schoolmaster, an Englishman named Grant. He had been a
teacher upon the farm of a Boer near Pretoria. Through some
difference with his employer he was dismissed; and his own version of
the affair indicates that he suffered considerable injustice. From
the evidence given in the case in which he subsequently figured it
appeared that in order to urge his grievance he returned to the
Boer's farm and even re-entered the house which he had formerly
occupied. He was arrested and charged with trespass, or threatening
to molest his late employer and members of his family, and was bound
over to keep the peace for six months and to find £50 surety for the
same, failing which he should go to gaol for that period. This seemed
to be rather a harsh sentence to pass upon a man who was over fifty
years of age, entirely destitute of means, of very inferior physique,
and who had been charged at the instance of an individual who could
certainly have protected himself against five such men as Grant. No
doubt the accused was an eccentric man, and probably a nuisance,
and it is even possible that his conduct left the magistrate no
alternative but to pass the sentence which he did: it is not intended
to question the justice of this part of the affair. Having been
sent to gaol, however, because he could not deposit £50, Grant was
treated as the commonest malefactor in all respects but one--he was
allowed to retain his own clothing. The unfortunate old man made a
pathetic picture with his seedy clothes, tail coat, tall white hat,
and worn gloves, which he punctiliously wore whenever called upon to
face the authorities--and it happened rather frequently. He objected
to being classed and herded with the thieves and murderers and others
whose crimes were even more repulsive. He protested against the class
of food that was served to him. For these remonstrances he at first
received solitary confinement and even poorer diet; and later with a
brutality which one can surely only find in a Du Plessis the
unfortunate old man was placed in the Kaffir stocks, thrown out in
the middle of the yard that he might be humiliated in the sight of
all, and kept there in the fierce heat of a tropical sun for half a
day. The sole excuse for this was that he had been unruly in
protesting against the treatment which he was receiving. The
spectacle excited the pity of the Reform prisoners to such an extent
that even with the certainty of an insulting rebuff from the gaoler
they endeavoured to represent the man's case so as to have him
released, but without success. It need only be added that the
unfortunate man did not serve his entire term, the first act of the
first released Reformers being to pay up the surety required and
provide him with funds to leave the country. Grant may have been as
guilty and offensive as eccentricity can make a man, but nothing can
justify the manner in which he was treated.

The stocks in the hands of Du Plessis were not the mild corrective
instrument which they are sometimes considered to be. According to
this authority the stocks can be made to inflict various degrees of
punishment. Du Plessis states that when he took over the gaol he
found that the custom was to place men in the stocks within a cell
and to trust to the irksomeness of the position and the solitary
confinement to bring about a better frame of mind; but he soon found
that this system was capable of improvement. His first act was to
place the prisoners white or black in the stocks in the middle of the
yard, so that they should be exposed to the observation and remarks
of all the officials and visitors and their fellow-prisoners. In
explaining the reasons for this change, he said that he found that
in a cool cell a man could be tolerably comfortable and that even the
most hardened of them preferred not to be seen in the stocks by
others; whereas in the yard they were obliged to sit on the uneven
gravel and to endure the heat of the sun as well as being 'the
cynosure of every eye.' But this did not satisfy the ingenious Du
Plessis. The yard of the Pretoria gaol inclines from south to north
about one foot in four, and Du Plessis' observant eye detected that
the prisoners invariably sat facing down the slope--for of course
they were not allowed to lie down while in the stocks, this being too
comfortable a position. Upon studying the question he found that in
this way much more ease was experienced owing to the more obtuse
angle thus formed by the body and the legs. This did not suit him and
he issued further orders that in future all prisoners in the stocks
should be obliged to sit facing uphill, and that they should not be
allowed to hold on to the stocks in order to maintain themselves in
this position but should have to preserve the upright posture of the
body by means of the exertion of the muscles of the back alone.
Needless to say the maintenance of such a position for hours at a
time caused an agony of aches which many prisoners were quite unable
to endure, and frequently the men were seen to throw themselves back
and lie down at the risk of being kicked up by the vigilant Du
Plessis and confined in the stocks for a longer period than was
originally intended. Nor did this complete the list of Mr. Du
Plessis' ingenuities. The stocks had been built to accommodate
several persons at the same time, and he found that by inserting the
legs in the alternate holes, instead of in the pair as designed by
the architect of the stocks, the increased spread of the legs caused
still greater strain upon his victim. This was reserved for special
cases--say one in every four or five.

The incidents here given illustrating the methods of this delectable
individual were all witnessed by the Reformers. The account of Du
Plessis may serve the purpose of showing the methods practised under
a Government whose officials are appointed whenever possible from the
family circle and not because of fitness. It is more especially
designed to show the character of the man in whose hands the
prisoners were placed with almost absolute discretion; the man who
enjoys the privilege of discussing with his relative President
Kruger, at any hour at which he may choose to visit the Presidency,
the treatment to be accorded to his victims; the man who is retained
in his position in spite of repeated exposures by his superiors, and
who is credited with exercising very considerable influence with Mr.
Kruger; but, above all, the man in whose charge remain up to the
present time{37} the two Reformers, Messrs. Sampson and Davies, who
declined to sign any petition, and concerning whom Du Plessis stated
openly: 'Wait until the others have gone, and if the Government leave
them in my hands, I'll make them ready to sign anything.' Sufficient
has been said concerning this individual to warrant the description
publicly given of him by Colonel Rhodes{38}--'A brutal and inhuman
wretch!' Like most bullies the man is also a coward. When he
witnessed the outburst of feeling among the prisoners in consequence
of the death of their comrade, he would not venture into the
precincts of the gaol for two days, until assured that the men had
again become capable of self-control.

So much for the details of gaol life.

In the meantime sympathy with the prisoners began to take practical
form, and the unanimity of feeling on their behalf throughout South
Africa, which was quite unexpected and which greatly embarrassed
the Boer Government, tended to bring matters to a head. Mr. Rose
Innes, who had so generously and constantly exerted himself in
Pretoria in order to obtain some amelioration of the condition of the
prisoners, and who had in his official capacity as watching the case
for the Imperial Government made a very strong report to the Colonial
Office, did not content himself with these exertions. Upon his return
to Capetown he suggested and organized the getting up of a monster
petition to the President and Executive, urging upon them in the
interests of the peace of South Africa to release the imprisoned men.
The petitions were to represent the views of every town and village
in South Africa, and were to be presented by the mayors or municipal
heads of the communities. In this movement Mr. Rose Innes was most
ably seconded by Mr. Edmund Garrett, the editor of the _Cape Times,_
and other prominent men. A movement of this nature naturally excited
considerable attention in Pretoria; but the success of it was wholly
unexpected. The President and his party had played to the South
African gallery, and they had not yet realized that they had in any
way overdone the theatrical part. They had no suspicion of the real
feeling with which the sentences were regarded, nor of the extent to
which they had alienated sympathy by that and the subsequent
'magnanimous' action. 'Magnanimity by inches' had been placarded
throughout South Africa, and the whole game was characterized as one
of cat and mouse, in which the President was playing with his victims
with indifference to the demands of justice and humanity, partly with
a view to wringing concessions from the British Government, and
partly from a mistaken idea that by such a course he would obtain
credit at each step afresh for dealing generously with those who were
at his mercy.

The movement had been well organized. The resolution had been passed
in every town in South Africa, even including the towns of the Free
State. The mayors (over 200 in number) were on their way to Pretoria,
when the President, with his back against the wall, realized for the
first time that he had overshot the mark and that unless he released
the men before the arrival of the deputies he would either have to
do so apparently at their instance, or refuse to do so and risk
rousing a dangerous feeling. He chose the former course; he released
all the imprisoned men with the exception of the four who had been
sentenced to death and the two who had refused to appeal. Pretoria
and Johannesburg were already full of deputies and visitors from Cape
Colony, Natal, and the Free State, all bound on the same errand of
mercy. The feelings of these men, brought many hundreds of miles from
their homes, sacrificing their own business and personal convenience
in order to approach the President and to support a measure which
they felt to be imperatively necessary to the allaying of feeling in
South Africa may be imagined, but were not expressed, when they heard
that they had been allowed to undertake this journey as part of the
President's game, only to receive a slap in the face from His Honour
by the carrying out of the measure before they were permitted to
interview him. This at least was what was felt to be the case upon
the release of the majority. Absolute proof of it was forthcoming
within the week, when the President refused to receive the
deputations and kept them waiting in Pretoria until he had released
the four leaders as well, without allowing the delegates the
satisfaction of a courteous recognition of their mission. He admitted
them it is true to an informal interview, in the course of which he
managed to insult and outrage the feelings of a good many by
lecturing them and giving vent to very candid opinions as to their
personal action and duties; but he would not receive their
representatives officially.

On May 30 the prisoners with the exception of the six already
referred to were released, the terms being that their fines should be
paid at once, and the unexpired term of imprisonment remitted. Each
one as released was required to bind himself for the term of three
years, reckoned from the 30th day of May, 1896, neither directly nor
indirectly to meddle in the internal or external politics of the
South African Republic, and to conduct himself as a law-abiding
citizen of the State.

In some cases the provision was added that if in the opinion of the
Executive Council the terms of this undertaking should be broken,
the sentence of banishment which was held in suspense would come into
force, and the men were required to sign this addendum to the above
undertaking. The resolution of the Executive Council, which deals
with the mitigation of the sentences, states that the imprisonment
portions of the sentences are remitted; that the fines (£2,000 in all
cases) must be paid at once; and that the banishment shall remain in
abeyance subject to the faithful observance of the above undertaking;
but that should any action be taken by any of the prisoners
constituting in the opinion of the Executive Council a breach of the
above undertaking, the sentence of banishment shall come into force.

There is no definition of the phrase 'meddle in politics,' nor is
there any indication of what in the opinion of the Executive Council
constitutes politics. There is of course on record the President's
own statement in public that he would not permit any discussion on
the dynamite and railway questions because they are matters of 'high
politics'; and if haply the Executive should also hold this view, it
is difficult to see how any of the prisoners will be able to follow
their ordinary business and attend to those commercial affairs in
which they are concerned without committing some breach of this
ridiculous provision.

No answer was received to the many representations made on behalf of
the four leaders, except that the Government were busy with the
matter. Upon the release of the other prisoners it was suggested to
them by friends outside that it would be a proper and politic course
to proceed in a body to the Presidency and thank the President for
the action he had taken in their respect, and at the same time to beg
of him to extend a similar clemency to the four leaders who were
still left in gaol. Most of the men were dead against taking any such
action. They held very strongly to the opinion that they had been
arrested by treachery, condemned by arrangement, and played with as
counters in an unscrupulous manner. They recognized no obligation
towards the President. They could see no magnanimity in a policy
which had secured their arrest under the circumstances described
which inveigled them into pleading guilty to a nominal offence,
and which imposed upon them a sentence such as that passed. They
considered the enormous fine which they were then called upon to
pay to say nothing of the imprisonment which they had already
suffered wholly disproportionate to the offence, and their natural
impulse was to avoid the man who was directly responsible for it all,
or at least not to meet him under circumstances so unequal, when they
would be sure to be insulted, and would be obliged to suffer the
insult in silence.

Some of them however yielded to the representations of their friends,
who considered that it should be done for the sake of the men who
were not yet released; whilst there were others who expressed the
view that they would rather go back and do their imprisonment than
suffer the humiliation which it was proposed to inflict; that they
would not do it for themselves, and they could not bring themselves
to do it for anybody else. A considerable number of the prisoners
called upon His Honour; and this was the 'dog' interview. After
hearing the address of the men the President proceeded to pat himself
and his people on the back, saying that he knew he had behaved with
great magnanimity and moderation, and that he hoped that such
generosity would not be entirely thrown away.

'You must know,' he said, 'that I sometimes have to punish my dogs;
and I find that there are dogs of two kinds. Some of them who are
good come back and lick my boots. Others get away at a distance and
snarl at me. I see that some are still snarling. I am glad that you
are not like them.'

Those among his hearers who could understand His Honour's remarks,
although they had been prepared for much, were certainly not prepared
for this. The interpreter stood for a moment without rendering into
English the metaphor chosen by the worthy President, and even His
Honour--slow to perceive where he has transgressed the limits of
etiquette and good breeding--gathered from the expressions upon the
faces that something was wrong, and turning to the interpreter, said:

'Oh, that's only my joke! Don't interpret that to them.'

But those who witnessed it say that there was no joke in his voice or
his eye as he said it. Proceeding then with more circumspection he
walked out his dog in another form, and said that it was very well to
punish the little dogs as he had punished them, but somebody should
also punish the big dog--evidently referring to Mr. Rhodes--and in
the course of a homily he again mixed his parable, sticking all the
time to his dog however, remarking in conclusion that it was very
well to punish the dogs, but what was to happen to the owner of the
dogs, who stood by urging them on and crying 'Tsaa!'?

Throughout the week His Honour continued to make the homely dog work
to good purpose, but the interview with the released Reformers was,
it is believed, the first occasion upon which he made use of it.
Certainly on no other occasion did the President do such ample
justice to his reputation as a finished diplomat.

In the mean time negotiations had been proceeding for obtaining the
release of the leaders. The friends and representatives of the four
prisoners had become subject to all manner of attentions from numbers
of people in Pretoria; near relations of the President himself,
high-placed Government officials, their relatives, hangers-on,
prominent Boers, and persons of all sorts and descriptions, all
offered their services and indicated means by which the thing could
be arranged. All wanted money--personal bribes. The prisoners
themselves were similarly approached, and they who a month previously
had been condemned to death witnessed with disgust a keen competition
among their enemies for the privilege of effecting--at a price--their
release. Day after day they were subjected to the disgusting
importunities of these men--men who a little while before had been
vaunting their patriotism and loudly expressing a desire to prove it
by hanging these same Reformers.

The gaoler Du Plessis, representing himself as having been sent by
the President, suggested to the four men that they should 'make a
petition.' They declined to do so. Du Plessis was then reinforced by
the Chief Commissioner of Police, and the two officials again urged
this course but stated that they did not wish it to be known that
they had been sent by the Executive and therefore could not
consent to their names being used. Upon these terms the prisoners
again declined. They said that if they were to hold any communication
with the Government they required to have it on record that they did
so at the suggestion of the two responsible gaol officials who
represented themselves as expressing the wish of the Executive
Council. After further delay and consultations with the President and
others the two officials above named consented to allow their names
to be used in the manner indicated. Not content with this the
prisoners demanded that they should be allowed to send an independent
messenger to the President to ascertain whether he really required a
written appeal for revision of sentence. Having received confirmation
in this manner the four men addressed a letter to the Executive
Council. In this letter they stated that they had been sentenced to
death; that the death-sentence had been commuted; and that they
understood--but had received no authoritative information on the
subject--that they were to suffer instead a term of fifteen years'
imprisonment. They suggested the imposition of a monetary penalty in
place of the imprisonment; they stated that they held and represented
important interests in the State and that they believed their release
would tend to the restoration of confidence and favourable conditions
in the business community of the Rand; and they concluded by saying
that, if the Executive saw fit to adopt this suggestion, they the
prisoners would return to their business in good faith.

It had frequently been intimated to these men that it would be
impossible for the Government to impose a fine in place of the
death-sentence because money so obtained would be blood-money.
Reference had been made in the Executive Council to Biblical
precedents, notably the case of Judas, and the opinion was held that
if blood-money were taken the Lord would visit His wrath upon the
people.

The Boers are in their way a very religious people. But they are also
essentially practical; and it is difficult to find an instance in
which the religious principle has operated to their commercial
disadvantage. This at any rate was not one. The train of reasoning
which led them to justify the imposition of a fine was somewhat in
this wise: To _impose a fine_ would be to take blood-money, and
would be immoral and iniquitous: to _accept the offer of a present_
on condition that the sentence should be entirely remitted however
would be quite another thing.

So negotiations were set on foot to induce the prisoners to make the
necessary offer; and the prisoners, as has been shown, did so. This
satisfied the religious scruple of the Boer, but the terms of the
offer were not satisfactory to his commercial requirements. It became
necessary to make a definite offer. Further negotiations followed,
and the prisoners gathered that an offer of £10,000 apiece would be
viewed with favour by the President and his advisers; and it was
stated by members of the Volksraad and prominent officials who were
in the confidence of and in communication with the Government that,
in the event of such a contingency arising as the prisoners making an
offer of cash, the Executive would not take the money for the benefit
of the State but would accept it for charitable purposes--an
educational institute or a hospital or some such object.

This was communicated to the prisoners by the personages referred to,
and an offer was accordingly made of £10,000 apiece. The matter was
discussed in the Executive Council, and the Boer, true to his
instinct and record, perceived an opportunity to improve his
position. The religious gentlemen who would not take blood-money now
objected that the amount proposed was altogether too small, and the
President with that readiness so characteristic of him observed that
he thought the prisoners must have made a mistake, and meant £40,000
apiece instead of £40,000 for the lot.

Another delay ensued, and in the meanwhile more and more deputies
flocked to Pretoria, and stronger grew the feeling, and more angry,
disappointed, and disgusted grew the communities of Johannesburg and
Pretoria. The President, however, played his game unmoved by any such
considerations.

The next announcement from the Executive was a wholly unexpected one.
It was that they felt it necessary to consult Judge Gregorowski as to
the amount of money which ought to be taken as a donation to
charities. The matter of assessing the value of a death-sentence in
cash might perhaps be deemed a perplexing and a difficult one from
lack of precedent, yet nobody supposed the Executive Council to be
unequal to the task. It might also seem unfair to impose this further
burden of responsibility upon a judge; but Mr. Gregorowski had proved
himself superior to precedent and untrammelled by custom; and there
was much to be said in favour of continuing an association which had
worked very satisfactorily so far.

When however the President, with that resolute determination to be
generous which was so well advertised, at last overcame all obstacles
and succeeded in holding a meeting of his advisers to receive Mr.
Gregorowski's report, and when it was found that that gentleman
assessed capital punishment at £25,000 per head, the Executive
Council with one accord avowed themselves to be so utterly taken by
surprise by the announcement that they required time to think the
matter over and decide upon a course of action.

No doubt this opinion of Mr. Gregorowski's took them quite as much by
surprise as did his original sentences. However in the course of a
day or two they had recovered sufficiently to intimate to the
prisoners that, if they would amend their first offer of £40,000 for
the four and make it one of £40,000 apiece, the Executive would
decline to accept so large a sum, as being greater than they
considered equitable and would reply that in the opinion of the
Government £25,000 apiece would be sufficient. It was quite plainly
intimated that this procedure presented certain attractions to the
President, who desired for political purposes to exhibit further
magnanimity. The prisoners who by this time had gained some insight
into Mr. Kruger's methods, who knew from past experience the value of
his promises, and who could find no record in history to encourage
them in participating to this extent in the confidence trick,
point-blank refused to have anything to do with it.

They agreed to make a formal offer of a 'reasonable' fine, leaving
the interpretation of this to the Government, but only on the
distinct understanding that the amount should not exceed £25,000
each. They had learned that Mr. Gregorowski had fixed this amount and
that the Executive had agreed to accept it, and they would not offer
a penny more for magnanimity or anything else. They stated in
plain terms that they looked upon this matter simply as a bargain;
that if they should get out they were paying their way out, and that
in so far as their release from the position was concerned the
transaction was closed upon business terms and there should be no
question afterwards as to gratitude or magnanimity. The fines were
paid,{39} and on July 11 the leaders were released.

Messrs. Phillips, Farrar, and Hammond, who were compelled through
their business ties to continue their association with the Transvaal,
signed the same undertaking concerning politics as that given by the
rest of the prisoners--with the difference that in their case it
operates for a period of fifteen years. Colonel Rhodes however
declined to give the required undertaking and elected to take his
sentence of fifteen years' banishment. On the night of June 11
therefore he was sent across the border under escort, and passing
through the Free State proceeded at once to Matabeleland to render
what assistance he could to his brother in the suppression of the
rebellion. As though the excitement of the past few months had not
been sufficient, it may be added that in the first engagement in
which he took part on his arrival at Buluwayo his horse was shot, and
he narrowly escaped the same fate himself.

From time to time adverse comment has been made on the subject of
this undertaking of the Reformers to abstain from further
participation in politics. The position of the Reformers was this:
They had entered upon the movement to obtain the redress of certain
matters closely affecting their feelings as men and their interests
and business as settlers in the country. They were disarmed and
placed at the mercy of the Boer Government by the action of England's
Representative. To decline to give the pledge required would entail
banishment, which would in many cases mean ruin to them and in all
cases would remove them from the sphere in which they might yet
contribute to the attainment of the ends they had in view. The only
compensating consideration possible in such a course would be that
the redress desired would be effected through the influence of the
Imperial Government; but since the Imperial Government had shown
that under the circumstances they were neither willing nor able to
maintain to a logical conclusion the position which they took up when
they secured disarmament, the Reformers concluded that their obvious
course was to give the required undertaking. It is true that several
among them did decline to give this undertaking, saying that they
would prefer to serve their terms of imprisonment; but they received
the answer that after the term of two years' imprisonment the
Government would still require the undertaking or enforce the
banishment clause, so that it appeared to them there was no way out
of it but to sign what was required and wait patiently.

It is perfectly obvious that one of two alternatives will present
itself. Either the Government will come to regard this provision as a
dead letter, and wholly ignore it; or some of the men, in the course
of their business and in dealing with economic questions such as they
are morally entitled to discuss will fall foul of the 'opinion of the
Executive.' The issue will then be a very clear one, and many of
those who were strongly opposed to the Reformers on the premisses on
which they started will find themselves in cordial agreement with
them in later developments.{40}

The Reform movement closed for the time being with the release of the
leaders. Sixty-four men had been committed for trial. From four of
them the Government had received £100,000, and from fifty-six others
£112,000. One was dead; one had fallen so seriously ill before the
trial that he was unable to present himself with the rest, but on
recovering and announcing his intention to plead 'Not guilty' and
fight it out, the case against him was withdrawn.

There remained two men, Messrs. Sampson and Davies, whose case the
Government had refused to consider because they declined to appeal.
They had been sentenced on April 28 to two years' imprisonment and
£2,000 fine, or failing payment to another year's imprisonment, and
to three years' banishment; and under that sentence do they lie at
the present moment in the Pretoria gaol, at the mercy of the Boer
Government and its very competent representative Mr. Du Plessis.{41}

Much _kudos_ has accrued to Mr. Kruger for his magnanimity and much
profit for his astuteness! Great credit is also given to Mr.
Chamberlain for his prompt impartiality. And surely some day a
tribute of sympathy and admiration will go out from a people who like
pluck and who love fair play to two Englishmen who hold that a solemn
pledge is something which even a Boer should hold to, whilst
self-respect is more than liberty and beyond all price.


Footnotes for Chapter IX

{35} This was done on the second day--after a night without any
ventilation at all.

{36} See Appendix E.

{37} (July, 1899.) They were released in June, 1897.

{38} Du Plessis' threats regarding Messrs. Sampson and Davies were
made so openly and vengefully that Colonel F.W. Rhodes deemed it to
be his duty as soon as he was released to report the matter to the
High Commissioner, with a view to ensuring some measure of protection
for the two gentlemen above referred to. After the release of
the other prisoners, Du Plessis was for a time suspended, owing
to charges laid against him by the Inspector of Prisons. No
investigation appears however to have been made, and the man was
reinstated. During the month of September, after Messrs. Sampson and
Davies had already done five months of their sentence in Pretoria
Gaol, this man, finding himself unable to break their spirit by other
means, made a proposal to the Government to separate the two and to
place them in two small country gaols at wide distances apart and far
removed from the friendly offices and watchful eyes of their friends,
and thus deprive them of such benefit as they may be able _in the
future_ to get from proximity to the official representative of
England. In the past they have certainly derived none.

{39} It seems like reflecting on the reader's intelligence to add
that nothing more has been heard of the 'charities.'

{40} (July, 1899.) A clear indication of the Government's disposition
towards the Reformers was given by the treatment accorded to Mr.
Lionel Phillips. In consequence of a publication by Sir John
Willoughby of an article on the subject of the Raid, which failed to
accurately represent the facts as they were present to the minds of
the Reformers, Mr. Phillips wrote an article in the _Nineteenth
Century_ magazine, which was purely historical, moderate in tone, and
obviously designed only as an answer to the allegations which had
been made. The Executive Council arrived at the conclusion that it
was a breach of his undertaking to abstain from interference in
politics, and they issued a decree of banishment against him. As Mr.
Phillips had taken up his residence permanently in Europe, and as it
was well known that it would be extremely inconvenient for him to
return to South Africa in order to dispute this action it was
generally considered that the object of the move was to establish
a precedent, so to say, on the cheap, and in the same spirit to
intimidate others among the Reformers who were believed not to have
lost their interest in the cause of reform nor to have abandoned
their intention to begin again as soon as they were free to do so. It
is no exaggeration to say that scarcely a week could have passed
during the last two and a half years in which some or all of the half
dozen Uitlanders most prominent in the cause of reform have not been
in receipt of a warning of one kind or another, ranging from
apparently friendly advice not to take too keen an interest in
certain matters, up to the giddy eminence of being black listed in
the Dutch papers as one of those to be dragged out and shot without
trial as a traitor and a rebel. Such are the conditions under which
the unarmed Uitlanders labour for reform.

{41} (July, 1899.) Du Plessis was promoted to be Chief Inspector of
Prisons shortly after the release of Messrs. Sampson and Davies,
and still holds that post!





PART II.

A POSTSCRIPT.