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.