surrender of the
force, they appear to have been torn up. With that good fortune which
seems to have followed the Boers throughout this business, these torn
fragments were picked up on the battle-field by a Boer official four
months later, having remained undisturbed during the severe rain and
wind storms of the wet season. Some portions were missing, but the
others were pieced together and produced in evidence against the
Reform prisoners. The letters are printed hereunder as they were
written, as testified by the writers, and, in the case of the first
one, by others who read it before it was despatched. The italics
represent the fragments of the letters which were never found:{26}

DEAR DR.

The rumour of massa_cre in_ Johannesburg that started yo_u to_ our
relief was not true. We a_re all_ right, feeling intense. We have
armed a lot of men. Shall be very glad to see you. _We are_ not in
possess_ion of the_ town. _I shall send out some_ men to
_You are a fine_ fellow. Yours ever

F.R.{27}

We will all drink a glass along _o_' you.

L.P.{28}

31st, 11.30. Kruger has asked for _some of us to_ go over and treat:
armistice for _24 hours agreed_ to. My view is that they are in a
funk at Pretoria, and they were wrong to agree from here.

F.R.{27}

DR. JAMESON.

[Illustration. Caption: The above are reproductions of photographs of
the documents now in possession of the Transvaal Government. For the
report of the expert, Mr. T.H. Gurrin, as submitted to the Select
Committee of the House of Commons, see Appendix L.]

It may be noted that the tone of this correspondence does not appear
to be in accord with the attitude taken up by the Reform
Committee. The letters however were written on Tuesday the 31st, when
there was a general belief that Dr. Jameson had started in good
faith, misled by some false reports. In the second letter Colonel
Rhodes expresses the opinion that it was wrong to agree to send in
a deputation to meet the Government. This was written before the
deputation had gone to Pretoria, and clearly implies that the moral
effect of treating would be bad. The phrasing also shows that the
so-called armistice was for the purpose of treating, and not the
treating for the purpose of securing an armistice: in other words,
that the armistice would expire, and not commence, with the treating.

From the evidence given by the cyclist Rowland, it appears that he
stated to Dr. Jameson that he could get 2,000{29}