ARREST AND TRIAL OF THE REFORMERS.
About half of the members of the Reform Committee were arrested and
taken through to Pretoria on the night of the 9th. Others were
arrested at various times during the evening and night, were detained
in the lock-up at Johannesburg as ordinary felons, and escorted to
the Pretoria gaol on the following morning. The scene on their
arrival at Pretoria railway station and during their march to the
gaol was not creditable to the Boers. A howling mob surrounded the
prisoners, hustling them, striking them, and hurling abuse at them
incessantly. The mounted burghers acting as an escort forced their
horses at the unfortunate men on foot, jostling them and threatening
to ride them down. One of the prisoners, a man close on sixty years
of age, was thrown by an excited patriot and kicked and trampled on
before he was rescued by some of his comrades.
Once within the gaol, the men were searched and locked up in the
cells, and treated exactly as black or white felons of the lowest
description. In many cases four or five men were incarcerated in
single cells 9 feet long by 5 feet 6 inches wide, with one small
grating for ventilation. At night they were obliged to lie on the mud
floor, or in some cases on filthy straw mattresses left in the cells
by former occupants. No provision was made by which they could obtain
blankets or other covering--indeed at first it was not necessary, as
the overcrowding and lack of ventilation very nearly resulted in
asphyxiation. With an inhumanity almost incredible, in one instance
one of the prisoners, suffering from fever and dysentery, was locked
up for twelve hours with four others in such a cell without any
sanitary provisions whatever. Friends in Pretoria induced the
authorities, by means not unpopular in that place, to admit a better
class of food than that allowed to the ordinary prisoners; and it is
stated that the first meal enjoyed by the Reformers cost close upon
£100 for introduction. Day by day fresh concessions were obtained in
a similar manner, with the result that before long the prisoners were
allowed to have their own clothing and beds and such food as they
chose to order. Nothing however could alter the indescribable
sanitary conditions, nor compensate for the fact that the cells
occupied by these men were in many cases swarming with vermin.
The climate in Pretoria in January is almost tropical, and the
sufferings of many of the older and less robust men under such
circumstances were very considerable. On the eleventh day of
incarceration the majority of the prisoners were let out on bail of
£2,000 each; in the cases of two or three bail of £4,000 each was
required; but bail was refused to Colonel Rhodes, Messrs. Phillips,
Farrar, Hammond (the signatories to the letter), and J.P.
FitzPatrick, the secretary of the Reform Committee. These five
continued to occupy the undesirable premises for four weeks more, at
the end of which time, owing to the serious effect upon their health
which imprisonment under these conditions had produced, and owing to
the repeated representations within the Transvaal and from the
British Government as well, an alteration was made under somewhat
novel conditions.
It was notified to the public that the Government had graciously
consented to admit the prisoners to bail. The terms, however, were
not at the time publicly announced. First and foremost it was
required of them that they should deposit £10,000 in sovereigns each
as security that they would not break the conditions of their altered
imprisonment. They were to reside in a cottage in Pretoria under
strong guard, and they were to pay the whole of the costs of their
detention, including the salary and living expenses of the officer
and guard placed over them. The cost, including interest upon the
money deposited, was upwards of £1,000 a month.
The preliminary examination into the charges against the Reformers
began on February 3, and lasted about a month. It resulted in the
committal for trial, on the charge of high treason, of all those
arrested. The Imperial Government having decided to send a
representative to watch the trial on behalf of the British, American
and Belgian subjects, Mr. J. Rose Innes, Q.C., the leader of the Bar
in Cape Colony, attended on their behalf. It was intimated to the
Transvaal Government that Mr. Innes would represent the Imperial
Government; but objection was made to this on the grounds that he had
been admitted to the Pretoria Bar during the British administration,
and had failed to comply with a subsequent rule of Court which
required some sort of registration; and permission was refused to him
to address the Court. The objection was maintained, and Mr. Innes was
obliged to limit his participation in the affair to sitting at the
counsels' table and consulting and advising with the Pretoria
barristers employed to defend the prisoners.
The examination was, as Dr. Coster the State Attorney announced, of
the nature of a fishing examination, and he claimed to be permitted
to conduct it in a manner which, he alleged, is popular in Holland,
but which is entirely unknown in the Transvaal, and certainly does
not obtain in any British possession. The chief feature of this
system appears to be a total disregard of the rules applying to
evidence. A few instances will suffice. One of the first witnesses
called was Judge Ameshof, who with Chief-Justice Kotzé and Mr. Kock
formed the Government Commission appointed to meet the deputation
from the Reform Committee on January 1. Judge Ameshof was duly sworn,
and was asked to identify a list of the members of the Reform
Committee. He did so. He stated that it was the list supplied to the
Government Commission at the meeting of January 1 by the deputation
of the Reform Committee, and he regarded it therefore as authentic.
The deputation had stated to the Commission that it was so.
This was the first revelation of the tactics about to be pursued by
the Government, in using information which had been given under
privilege and in good faith by the prisoners themselves, when
negotiating with the Government prior to any question of arrest being
raised. Mr. Wessels, counsel for the accused, rose to obtain from
Judge Ameshof the official account of the meeting, desiring to prove
this very important negotiation by means of witnesses on the
Government side. He got no further however than saying to the
witness, 'You said you were a member of the Government Commission?'
when Judge Ameshof replied, 'Yes, but if you are going to ask me
about anything that took place at that meeting, I cannot answer,
because the meeting was a privileged one.' Mr. Wessels did not lose
his opportunity, 'You have stated,' he said, 'that you are a Judge of
the High Court?' The witness signified assent. 'And you mean to tell
me,' Mr. Wessels continued, 'that you feel yourself free to divulge
so much as it suits the Government to reveal, but that as soon as I
wish to prove something to my clients' advantage the interview
becomes privileged?' The witness did not answer, and Mr. Wessels
appealed to the Court. Judicial Commissioner Zeiler, however, upheld
the witness's contention. Mr. Wessels urged in reply that if it was a
privileged interview he objected to any evidence whatever being given
in connection with it, and protested vehemently against the admission
of the list of members just sworn to. The objection was overruled,
and it was thus laid down that the interview was privileged as far as
the Government was concerned, but not in so far as it could benefit
the Reformers.
Another case was that of Mr. Schumacher, a witness who testified,
_inter alia_, that he did not know what the objects of a certain
Development Syndicate were. His evidence showed that he had not been
informed upon this point. He was very hard pressed by the State
Attorney, but he adhered to his first answer. Dr. Coster then altered
his tactics and asked, 'Had you no opinions on the subject? Did you
not guess at all?' The witness replied that he might have thought and
conjectured at various times, but that he had nothing in the nature
of information or knowledge on the point. This did not satisfy Dr.
Coster, who then pressed the question, 'Well, what did you think?
What were your thoughts?' The witness objected to state what his
thoughts were, as they could have no bearing on the fact, and might
be absolutely wide of the mark. He could only repeat that he had no
knowledge. The witness appealed to the Bench for protection. Mr.
Wessels urged that it was an unheard-of proceeding to compel a
witness to state what he thought and to use it as evidence. The
objections were again overruled, and the witness was ordered by
the Court to answer. His reply afforded no satisfaction to the
Government, being to the effect that he could not then remember what
his thoughts were at various times. On the application of the State
Attorney the Judicial Commissioner sent him to gaol for twelve hours
for contempt of court.
Mr. Wessels strenuously objected to the decision and applied to the
Court to stay imprisonment to enable him to appeal to a judge in
chambers, but even this was refused. Mr. Wessels in the course of his
address received a reprimand from the Bench for stating that he now
recognized the force of the State Attorney's contention that the law
of evidence as obtaining in South Africa was not sufficiently wide;
for, he added, he thought it would suit the purpose of the Government
better if they reverted to an older system under which racks and
thumbscrews were popular.
The witness was sent to gaol. Some hours later an appeal was heard by
Judge de Korté in chambers, and the decision of the Judicial
Commissioner was reversed, but the prisoner had already completed
seven hours' imprisonment in a dirty cell. Judge de Korté stated that
he had reversed the decision after consultation with Chief Justice
Kotzé, and it was felt that something at least had been achieved by
Mr. Schumacher, and the rights of a witness would be recognized. But
the end is not always in sight in dealing with the Transvaal
Government. The State Attorney in turn appealed from the single
judge's decision to the full Bench. Judge Morice, a Scotchman, many
years a judge of the High Court, supported the decision of Judge de
Korté. The Chief Justice, who had advised Judge de Korté in his
decision however in a most extraordinary judgment now reversed it,
and in this view he was supported by Judge Ameshof--himself a witness
in the case against the Reformers.
Thus the majority judgment of the High Court against the Reformers on
this principle of evidence happened to be formulated by the two
judges who had been appointed to negotiate with the Reformers'
deputation on behalf of the Government.
The impossibility of obtaining justice in the Courts of the Transvaal
under the then conditions was thus brought home to the prisoners. An
appeal from the decision of the Lower Court on Judge Ameshof's
interpretation of privilege, which had been seriously discussed, was
then abandoned as being worse than useless, and calculated only to
provoke more extreme measures against the prisoners by placing the
Bench in a ridiculous position. It could not be expected that the
Chief Justice, who was himself a member of the Government Commission
which Judge Ameshof had claimed to be privileged, would take any
other view than that favouring the policy and convenience of the
Government which he showed himself so ready to befriend.
In the Schumacher appeal case before the full Court, Dr. Coster had
made no secret that he intended to disregard the rules and precedents
governing the treatment of witnesses, and even claimed that he should
receive no opposition from the prisoners' counsel, since he was only
'_fishing_' for evidence and not actually accumulating it against the
prisoners, and had no intention of using the evidence given at this
examination. Mr. Wessels asked him whether he would pledge himself to
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
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.