RIZAL'S DEFENCE These "Additions" were really Doctor Rizal's defence before the court martial which condemned him and pretended to have tried him, on the charge of having organized revolutionary societies and so being responsible for the rebellion. The only counsel permitted him, a young lieutenant selected from the junior Spanish army officers, risked the displeasure of his superiors in the few words he did say, but his argument was pitiably weak. The court scene, where Rizal sat for hours with his elbows corded back of him while the crowd, unrebuked by the court, clamored for his death, recalls the stories of the bloody assizes of Judge Jeffreys and of the bloodthirsty tribunals of the Reign of Terror. He was compelled to testify himself, was not permitted to hear the testimony given for the prosecution, no witness dared favor him, much less appear in his behalf, and his own brother had been tortured, with the thumbscrews as well as in other mediaeval and modern ways, in a vain endeavor to extort a confession implicating the Doctor. ADDITIONS TO MY DEFENCE Don José Rizal y Alonso respectfully requests the Court Martial to consider well the following circumstances: First.--Re the rebellion. From July 6th, 1892, I had absolutely no connection with politics until July 1st of this year when, advised by Don Pio Valenzuela that an uprising was proposed, I counselled against it, trying to convince him with arguments. Don Pio Valenzuela left me convinced apparently; so much so that instead of later taking part in rebellion, he presented himself to the authorities for pardon. Secondly.--A proof that I maintained no political relation with any one, and of the falsity of the statement that I was in the habit of sending letters by my family, is the fact that it was necessary to send Don Pio Valenzuela under an assumed name, at considerable cost, when in the same steamer were travelling five members of my family besides two servants. If what has been charged were true, what occasion was there for Don Pio to attract the attention of any one and incur large expenses? Besides, the mere fact of Sr. Valenzuela's coming to inform me of the rebellion proves that I was not in correspondence with its promoters for if I had been then I should have known of it, for making an uprising is a sufficiently serious matter not to hide it from me. When they took the step of sending Sr. Valenzuela, it proves that they were aware that I knew nothing, that is to say, that I was not maintaining correspondence with them. Another negative proof is that not a single letter of mine can be shown.