{43} The writer has since learned from Mr. Alfred Beit that the same proposal was made to him by Mr. Graaff in January, 1896, immediately after the Raid, and that it was baited with the promise that if he and Mr. Rhodes would agree to support it the threatened 'consequences' of their association with the Raid would be averted. But they preferred the 'consequences.'
{44} About the middle of 1895 a bad explosion of dynamite occurred in Germany under circumstances very similar to those of the Johannesburg accident. An inquiry held by the German authorities resulted in the finding that the explosion must have been due to some fault in the dynamite, and an order was issued to destroy the remainder. The officials charged with this duty found, however, that the owners, anticipating some such result, had removed it. It was eventually traced as having been shipped from Antwerp to Port Elizabeth and thence consigned to the Transvaal in November, 1895. The Johannesburg explosion occurred in February, 1896. No competent or independent inquiry was held, although about 100 people were killed and many more injured.
{45} The gaoler—Du Plessis—in the fulfilment of his promise lost no opportunity to harass them into submission, by depriving them of one thing after another, knowing that they would ask for nothing except as a right. As an instance, the spirit-lamp with which they made their tea was taken from them on the pretext that no combustibles were allowed under the prison regulations, and upon a remonstrance being made by Mr. Conyngham Greene to Dr. Leyds the latter replied that it was necessary on account of the risk of fire. For about eight months, therefore, water was to be—and of course was—their only drink. Only once during the thirteen months did Du Plessis appear to 'get home.' It was when he proposed that the two should be separated and sent to out-of-the-way gaols, widely apart and distant from all friends. Without doubt the conditions told seriously upon their health, but as both men were endowed with exceptional physique and any amount of grit they were still able to take it smiling.
{46} It is described as the Witfontein case. See [page 100].
{47} When the case came up again in due course a decision was given by Mr. Gregorowski, the new Chief Justice, which was regarded by the plaintiff's advisers as a reversal of the first judgment, and the practical effect of which was to bring the case under the operations of Law 1 of 1897—that is to say, to put the plaintiff 'out of court.' Mr. Brown has appealed to the United States Government for redress.
{48} See [Appendix K].
CHAPTER XI.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END.
So the year dragged on with its one little glimmer of light and its big black clouds of disappointment, and it was Christmas-time when the spark came to the waiting tinder. What a bloody bill could the holidays and holy days of the world tot up! On the Sunday night before Christmas a British subject named Tom Jackson Edgar was shot dead in his own house by a Boer policeman. Edgar, who was a man of singularly fine physique and both able and accustomed to take care of himself, was returning home at about midnight when one of three men standing by, who as it afterwards transpired was both ill and intoxicated, made an offensive remark. Edgar resented it with a blow which dropped the other insensible to the ground. The man's friends called for the police and Edgar, meanwhile, entered his own house a few yards off. There was no attempt at concealment or escape; Edgar was an old resident and perfectly well known. Four policemen came, who in any circumstances were surely sufficient to capture him. Moreover, if that had been considered difficult, other assistance could have been obtained and the house from which there could have been no escape might have been watched. In any case Edgar was admitted by the police to have sat on the bed talking to his wife, and to have been thus watched by them through the window. It is not stated that they called upon him to come out or surrender himself, but they proceeded immediately to burst in his door. Hearing the noise he came out into the passage. He may or may not have known that they were police: he may or may not have believed them to be the three men by one of whom he had been insulted. There is not a word of truth in the statement since made that Edgar had been drinking. It was not alleged even in defence of the police, and the post-mortem examination showed that it was not so. A Boer policeman named Jones (There are scores of Boers unable to speak a word of English, who nevertheless own very characteristic English, Scotch, and Irish names—many of them being children of deserters from the British army!) revolver in hand burst the door open. It is alleged by the prisoner and one of the police that as the door was burst open, Edgar from the passage struck the constable on the head twice with an iron-shod stick which was afterwards produced in Court. On the other hand Mrs. Edgar and other independent witnesses—spectators—testified that Edgar did not strike a blow at all and could not possibly have done so in the time. The fact, however, upon which all witnesses agree is that as the police burst open the door Constable Jones fired at Edgar and dropped him dead in the arms of his wife, who was standing in the passage a foot or so behind him. On the following morning, the policeman was formally arrested on the charge of manslaughter and immediately released upon his comrades' sureties of £200.