understand.  The emphatic affirmation of such a doctrine by Judge and jury in the Edgar case cannot but increase the general feeling of insecurity amongst the Uitlander population, and the sense of injustice under which they labour.  It may be pointed out that the allegation that Edgar assaulted the police was emphatically denied by his wife and others, and that the trial was conducted in a way that would be considered quite irregular in this country, the witnesses for the defence being called by the prosecution, and thereby escaping cross-examination.”

The answer of the Government of the South African Republic was:—­[46] “The Edgar case is referred to by your Government as the most striking recent instance of arbitrary action by officials, and of the support of such action by the Courts,” and this case is quoted as a conclusive test of the alleged judicial maladministration of this Republic; it will, therefore, be of interest to pause for a moment and consider it.  What are the true facts?

“A certain Foster, ‘an Englishman,’ was assaulted and felled to the ground, without any lawful cause, by a man named Edgar during the night of the 18th December, 1898; he lay on the ground as if dead, and ultimately died in the hospital.  Edgar escaped to his room, and some police came on the scene, attracted by the screams of the bystanders.  Amongst the police was one named Jones.  When they saw the man who had been assaulted lying as if dead, they went to Edgar’s apartment in order to arrest him as a criminal (he had, indeed, rendered himself liable for manslaughter, and apparently for murder).  As he was caught in the very act, the police officers were, according to the Laws, not only of this Republic, but of all South Africa and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, justified in breaking open the door in order to arrest the culprit.  While doing so, Edgar, with a dangerous weapon, struck Jones a severe blow.  Under the stress of necessity the latter shot Edgar, from the effects of which he died.  The question is not if Jones was justified in taking this extreme step, for the State Attorney of the Republic had already given effect to his opinion that this was a case for the jury by prosecuting him for manslaughter.  The question is solely whether any jury in any country in the world would have found a man guilty of any crime under the circumstances set forth, and whether, if they did not find him guilty, the fact of their doing so would have been stamped and branded as a flagrant and remarkable instance of the maladministration of Justice.

“This Government is convinced that the English judicial administration affords numberless instances where the facts are as strong as in this case, and it cannot see why an occurrence which could happen in any part of the world would be especially thrown in their teeth in the form of an accusation.