My husband reached Pretoria Sunday evening, April 26. The information that we had received en route, regarding the pleas of guilty entered by the imprisoned Reformers, was confirmed by his associates: the other three leaders, Messrs. Rhodes, Farrar, and Phillips, had entered a plea of guilty under count one of the indictment for high treason, the fifty-nine Reformers entering a like plea of guilty under the count of lèse-majesté. As conjectured by us when we heard of this action of the Reformers, the prisoners had received certain assurances before making such pleas:

First. That they should not be tried under the comparatively obsolete Roman Dutch Law, which punished the crime of treason with death; but they would be tried and punished under, and in accordance with, the code laws of the Transvaal Republic, which imposed penalties of fine and imprisonment for the crime charged in the indictment.

Second. The leaders were further assured that this action on their part would measurably mitigate the sentences of the other fifty-nine Reformers.

On Monday, the 27th, the Court reconvened in the market hall, the imported Judge Gregorowsky occupying the bench.

Mr. Hammond took his place with the three leaders, attended by his physician, Dr. Scholtz, who remained at his side during the entire trial.

After some preliminary matters were disposed of, Mr. Hammond, actuated by the same influences that were brought to bear on his associates, entered a plea of guilty to count one of the indictment, and placed his signature to the written statement which had been previously signed by Messrs. Rhodes, Phillips, and Farrar.

This written paper was in substance as follows:

That for a number of years the Uitlanders had earnestly and peacefully sought relief for their grievances by the constitutional right of petition. That what they asked was only what was conceded to new-comers by every other South African Government.

That petition after petition was placed before the authorities one bearing 40,000 signatures, asking alleviation of their burdens and wrongs; that they could never obtain a hearing, and that the provisions of law already deemed obnoxious and unfair were being made more stringent; and, realising that they would never be accorded the rights they were entitled to receive, it was determined to make a demonstration of force in support of their just demands.

The statement then recites the coming of Jameson against their express commands and understanding with him, and all the subsequent acts of the Transvaal Government, the High Commissioner, and De Wet, Her Majesty’s Agent, which are now matters of history.

The paper concluded as follows:

’We admit responsibility for the action taken by us. We practically 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 of the arrangement. We did all that was humanly possible to protect both the State and Dr. Jameson from the consequences of his action; that we have committed no breach of the law which was not known to the Government at the time; and that the earnest consideration of our grievances was promised.

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

After the examination of several witnesses and the introduction of the celebrated cipher telegrams, the Court was adjourned for the day.

TUESDAY, THE 28TH. There was a vast concourse gathered at the Market Hall on this day of the trial. The chamber was crowded to its utmost limit by anxious and interested listeners. Many ladies were present.

His Lordship (the imported Judge) was late in ascending the bench, unnecessarily prolonging the suspense of the waiting crowd.

The proceedings were commenced with every formality that could render them impressive. A large number of armed men were stationed at the entrance and about the Court-room. A prominent object in the Court-room, one which immediately struck the eye of those entering, as this was its first appearance during the trial, was a plain wooden dock, low in front, high at the back, and large enough to hold four men.

As in the preliminary examination, the Court proceedings were conducted in the Dutch language, an unfamiliar tongue to a majority of the accused.

After the despatch of some minor matters, Mr. Wessels, counsel for the defence, made his address to the Court, closing by reading the written statement of the four leaders, and asking the clemency of the Court.

He made no reference or protest to the tribunal as constituted a Court presided over by a Judge not a citizen of the country whose sovereignty had been offended by the treasonable acts charged.

Mr. Wessels was followed by the State Attorney, Dr. Coster, in a bitter and vindictive speech.

He demanded that the prisoners at the bar should be punished under the Roman Dutch Law, and that the four leaders should receive the death penalty.

This demand of the State Attorney was apparently a surprise to Mr. Wessels, for he sprung to his feet in an excited manner and protested most vigorously against the demand of Dr. Coster; his language and manner were such as to impress many present that it was provoked by a breach of good faith.

At the conclusion of the speech of the State Attorney, Gregorowsky (the imported Judge) summed up the case at length, and held that the prisoners were guilty of high treason as charged in the indictment, and that the Roman Dutch Law governed in such cases; and that the sentences imposed would be in accordance therewith.

The Sheriff then with a loud voice commanded silence whilst the sentence of death was pronounced.

A deep hush fell upon the Court-room a profound, breathless silence that became oppressive before the next official utterances disturbed it.

‘Lionel Phillips, George Farrar, Francis Rhodes, John Hays Hammond!’ called the Registrar.

In response these four were singled out from the rest of the prisoners and conducted to the new dock.

It was the Registrar who again spoke.

’Lionel Phillips, have you any legal reasons to urge why sentence of death should not be passed upon you, according to law?’

‘No,’ was the response.

This was followed by the sentence.

In like manner, Farrar and Rhodes were interrogated and sentenced.

Mr. Hammond was then called to his feet and the same formal question asked.

Although pale and weak from protracted illness, Mr. Hammond responded in a firm voice to the Registrar’s question.

The Judge, then addressing the prisoner, said: ’John Hays Hammond, it is my painful duty to pass sentence of death upon you.

’I am only applying the punishment which is meted out and laid down according to law, leaving it to his Honour the State President, and the Executive Council, to show you any mercy which may lie in their power.

’May the magnanimity shown by his Honour the State President, and this Government, to the whole world, during the recent painful events be also shown to you.

’I have nothing to do with that, however.

’I can only say, that in any other country you would not have a claim on their mercy. The sentence of the Court is, that you be taken from this place where you are now, and be conveyed to the jail at Pretoria, or any such other jail in this Republic as may be appointed by law, to be kept there till a time and place of execution shall be appointed by lawful authority, that you be taken to the place of execution to be there hanged by the neck till you are dead.

‘May Almighty God have mercy on your soul!’

Whilst the sentences were being passed upon the four leaders the auditors were wrought up to the highest pitch; sobs were heard on every side, tears were on many cheeks, and even stolid old Boers were seen to weep. One man was carried from the room in a fit.

The four Reform leaders, who had borne themselves during this trying time in a brave and fearless manner, then stepped out of the dock firmly and unhesitatingly, and were taken to the Pretoria jail.

The other fifty-nine prisoners were then called to the bar and sentenced each to pay a fine of ten thousand dollars, and to suffer two years’ imprisonment.

Thus ended this remarkable trial, a judicial trial unprecedented in the annals of jurisprudence.

A mockery of justice and a travesty upon civilisation.