{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.