conduct had been prepared to be sent to the Netherlands by some officer
in the return fleet, and that Adam Tas, as a competent penman, had most
likely written it. To get possession of his papers, an act of extreme
violence, contrary to all law and justice, was then resolved upon. The
landdrost of Stellenbosch was directed to arrest Tas, and without a
warrant or any legal authority whatever, with a strong armed party he
surrounded the house of that burgher at early dawn in the morning of
Sunday, the 28th of February 1706, arrested him, sent him a prisoner to
Capetown, searched his house, and carried away his writing desk. After
this outrage there could be no truce whatever between the governor and
his opponents, for if a burgher could be treated in this manner, upon
mere suspicion of having drawn up a memorial to the high authorities, no
man’s liberty would be safe. Bail was immediately offered for the
appearance of Tas before a court of justice, but was refused. He was
committed to prison, where he was kept nearly fourteen months in close
confinement, without his wife or friends being permitted to see him,
without writing materials, and even when his little son died, without
being allowed to see the corpse.
In his desk was found the draft from which the memorial to the directors
had been copied. It was unsigned, but a list containing a number of
names and various letters which were with it indicated several of those
who had taken part in the compilation. The completed memorial, with
sixty-two names, thirty-one of which were those of Frenchmen, attached
to it, was at the time in the house of a burgher in Capetown, where it
was intended to be kept until it could be sent away with the return
fleet.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
The governor thus became acquainted with the nature and terms of the
charges against him. On the 4th of March a number of ships’ officers
were invited to assist in the deliberations of the council of policy,
and some of the retired and acting burgher councillors were summoned to
give evidence. These answered a few questions put to them by the
governor, in a manner favourable to him. The broad council then
consented to the issue of a placaat, in which all persons were forbidden
to take part in any conspiracy or to sign any malicious or slanderous
document against the authorities of the country, under pain of severe
punishment. The ringleaders in such acts were threatened with death or
corporal chastisement. The fiscal and the landdrost were authorised to
seize persons suspected of such offences, and to commit them to prison.
This placaat was on the following Sunday affixed to the door of the
Stellenbosch church.
Within the next few days the governor caused the burghers Wessel
Pretorius and Jacobus van der Heiden to be arrested and committed to
prison, the retired burgher councillor Jan Rotterdam to be banished to
Batavia, and the burghers Pieter van der Byl, Henning Huising,
Ferdinandus Appel, and Jan van Meerland to be put on board a ship bound
to Amsterdam. Jan Rotterdam was seventy years of age, and afflicted with
diabetes, a disease that made it difficult for him to rise quickly from
his seat. He was respected by every one, but the governor had taken a
dislike to him because he did not rise in church when his Excellency
entered, and only saluted by taking off his hat and bowing when seated
on a stoep and his Excellency passed by. This was termed by the governor
insolence, malice, and disrespect, and formed the principal complaint
against him.[74] To this offence he had added, as had the others named,
by signing the memorial. These men had no time given to them to arrange
their affairs, but were hurried out of the country as if they had been
malefactors. They were informed that they must answer before the supreme
authorities at the places of their destination to the charges of
sedition and conspiracy that would be forwarded by the Cape council, and
if they had any complaints they might make them there also.
[Sidenote: Illegal Imprisonment of Burghers.]
By these high-handed proceedings, which were hardly ever equalled by the
most despotic monarch in Europe, and which were in direct opposition to
the laws and customs of the Netherlands,[75] though indeed more than
once violated there in times of popular uprisings, the governor hoped to
terrify his opponents into signing the certificate in his favour and
denying the truth of the charges against him. But not one of those who
were confined on board the ships in the bay faltered for a moment. Their
wives petitioned that the prisoners should be brought to trial at once
before a proper court of justice, which was their right as free-born
Netherlanders, and when it was hinted that if they would induce their
husbands to do what was desired, release would follow, these
true-hearted women indignantly refused.
The arrest and committal to prison of Nicolaas van der Westhuizen,
Christiaan Wynoch, Hans Jacob Conterman, and Nicolaas Meyboom followed
shortly. The governor felt sure now that the complaints of the burghers
would reach Holland by some means or other, and therefore on the 31st of
March 1706 he and the council addressed a letter to the directors, in
which a very unfavourable description of the burghers who signed the
memorial was given, and their conduct in doing so was styled conspiracy,
sedition, mutiny, and rebellion.[76] With this letter was sent an
attested copy of the certificate in his favour, as if it had been a
voluntary and spontaneous act on the part of those whose names or marks
were attached to it.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches]
In the meantime the memorial had been committed to the care of Abraham
Bogaert, a physician in the return fleet, who was refreshing himself on
shore, and who had warm sympathy with the oppressed burghers. He
afterwards wrote a history of these events, which is one of the best
ever published, and which agrees in all respects with the records in the
Cape archives. The Ceylon ships did not reach Table Bay until the 5th
and 6th of March, and the two from Batavia only on the 24th and 26th of
that month. The last arrival required a few days’ delay for refreshment,
but at length all were ready for sea, as were the English ships that had
been waiting to sail in their company. On Sunday, the 4th of April 1706,
the anchors were raised, and the fifteen Dutch and nine English Indiamen
stood out to sea with a favouring breeze. What a gallant sight it must
have been for all but the four banished men, who were forced to leave
all that was dear to them here in Africa, and their farms to be looked
after by their wives alone! When the fleet was at sea and all fear of
search was over, Bogaert delivered the memorial to Henning Huising.
The anchors of the ships were being raised and the topsails being
sheeted home when the governor must have reflected that he was making a
mistake in sending four of the burghers to Europe. In great haste he
embarked in a galiot and followed the fleet as far as Robben Island. In
the official records it is stated that he did this to show respect to
the admiral, but no such method of showing respect was practised here
before or since, and his opponents were probably right when they
asserted that his object was to overtake the ship in which the burghers
were, and release them. He did not succeed in doing this, however.
[Sidenote: Treatment of Imprisoned Burghers.]
Within a week or two further arrests were made, when Jacob de Savoye,
Pierre Meyer, Jacob Cloete, Jacob Louw, and one or two others were
placed in detention. The health of some of the prisoners broke down
under the rigorous treatment to which they were subjected: one--Jacobus
van der Heiden--was confined for twenty-seven days in a foul dungeon,
with a black criminal as his companion. Thirteen of them then, with a
hope of obtaining liberty and the companionship of their families as an
inducement on one side, and the horrible suffering of confinement on
coarse and scanty fare in dark and noisome dungeons and debarred from
the visits of relatives or friends on the other, gave way to the
temptation, and replied to questions put to them disowning the truth of
the assertions in the memorial and expressing contrition for having
signed it. Among these thirteen was Adam Tas, and the circumstance of
his having done so is certainly a blemish upon his reputation, though it
would not be fair to speak harshly of him, considering the position in
which he was placed. His recantation, however, was of no service, for
the governor was devoid of anything like compassion towards him. These
declarations, as they were termed, which were really of no more value
than the confessions of men on the rack, were obtained at different
dates from the 8th of March to the 7th of May 1706. The men who made
them excused themselves afterwards for so doing by stating that it could
not affect the charges against the governor and the other officials,
which would be brought before the directors by those who were then on
the way to Europe. And so, after an imprisonment varying in duration
from a few days to a few weeks, all were released except Adam Tas and
Jacob Louw.
On the 24th of June 1706 the governor and council of policy wrote again
to the directors, vilifying in very strong language the burghers who had
signed the memorial, enclosing copies of the declarations of those who
had been terrified into denying the truth of their former assertions,
and asking that a special commissioner should be sent out to inspect
matters of every kind and report upon them. This request must have been
made with the object of gaining time, for the governor knew well that
his conduct would not bear such an inquiry.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
For a short time matters were now quiet, but on the governor coming to
learn the names of some more of his opponents, Willem van Zyl, François
du Toit, Guillaume du Toit, Hercules du Pré, Cornelis van Niekerk,
Martin van Staden, Jacobus van Brakel, Jan Elberts, and Nicolaas Elberts
were cited to appear before the court of justice. These came to a
resolution not to obey the summons before the decision of the directors
should be known, and so they failed to attend. They were cited by
placaat, but in vain. In consequence, on the 9th of August, by a
majority of the court of justice sitting with closed doors each of them
was sentenced for contumacy to be banished to Mauritius for five years
and to pay a fine of £41 13_s_. 4_d_., half for the landdrost as
prosecutor and half for the court. They were at the same time declared
incapable of ever holding any political or military office in the
colony.
This sentence was made public on the 23rd of August, and it tended to
increase the hostility to the government. The whole of the Stellenbosch
and Drakenstein district was now in a state of commotion. Work on the
farms practically ceased, for no man or woman could tell what might not
happen from hour to hour, and no one considered himself safe. The
military outposts, excepting those at Waveren, Klapmuts, Groenekloof,
and Saldanha Bay, at which twenty-four men in all were stationed, had
been broken up before this date, so the burghers felt free to act. In
the early morning of the 18th of September the farmers of Waveren,
Riebeek’s Kasteel, and Drakenstein rode armed into the village of
Stellenbosch, and at beat of drum drew up near the landdrost’s office.
Starrenburg went out to them, and requested the drummer to be still; but
that individual, who was a Frenchman, kept on beating, only observing
that he did not understand Dutch. Some persons, to show their contempt
for the landdrost, began to dance round the drum. Others inquired why
there was to be no fair this year, such as there had always been since
1686. Starrenburg replied that the Indian authorities had prohibited it;
but they would not believe him, and laid the blame upon the Cape
government. Yet it was correct that the Indian authorities were solely
responsible in this matter, as with a view to save expense, on the 29th
of November 1705 they had instructed the council of policy not to
contribute longer towards the prizes or to furnish wine and ale at the
cost of the Company. There was thus no kermis or fair in 1706 and later.
[Sidenote: Disorder at Stellenbosch.]
After this the women expressed their views. The wives of Pieter van der
Byl and Wessel Pretorius, speaking for all, informed the landdrost that
they had no intention of submitting to his tyranny, but were resolved to
maintain their rights. The spirit of the women of the country districts
was thoroughly roused, and their opposition was as formidable as that of
their husbands.[77] Starrenburg was obliged to return to his house in
humiliation. The burghers remained in the village the whole day, setting
him at defiance, but otherwise preserving perfect order.
A few days later two of the persons sentenced to banishment appeared in
Stellenbosch without any support, and jeered at the landdrost, who dared
not attempt to arrest them, as he could not even depend upon his
subordinates. All respect for the government was gone.
It was now arranged between the governor and the landdrost that during
the night of the 28th of September, after the closing of the castle
gate, a party of mounted soldiers should march secretly to the Kuilen.
At two o’clock in the morning of the 29th the landdrost was to meet them
there, and was then before daylight to arrest those who were believed to
be the leaders of the defiant party. But a petty official at the Kuilen,
who sympathised with the burghers, managed to detain the party for a
time, and when they at length left to try to seize Cornelis van Niekerk
in his bed, the alarm had been given.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
Daylight broke, no one had been captured, and there was nothing left for
the landdrost and the soldiers but to retire to the village of
Stellenbosch. No one there would give any information or sell a particle
of food to the troops, and the landdrost was obliged to kill his own
goats for their use until provisions could be sent from Capetown.
Starrenburg having now soldiers at his back, the burghers sentenced to
exile fled to Twenty-four Rivers, where they concealed themselves. The
landdrost did his best to capture them, and on the 4th of February 1707
succeeded in arresting Hercules du Pré and Jacobus van Brakel, who were
sent on board the Mauritius packet then lying in Table Bay. A month
later Guillaume du Toit was arrested also and sent on board the same
vessel. During this time the governor dismissed the heemraden and other
officers who had been elected in the legitimate manner, and arbitrarily
appointed creatures of his own to the vacant places.
On the 20th of February 1707 the frigate _Pieter en Paul_ arrived in
Table Bay. She had left Texel on the 2nd of November, and brought
letters to some of the burghers, in which they were informed that their
case had been decided favourably by the directors. She brought no
official despatches, however, and the governor, who affected to
disbelieve the assertions of the burghers, continued his tyranny as
before.
[Sidenote: Return of Jan Rotterdam.]
On the 3rd of March five ships from Ceylon dropped their anchors in
Table Bay, and were followed, 31st of March to 6th of April by six
others from Batavia, forming the return fleet of that year, under
Admiral Meynderts de Boer. In one of the ships from Batavia was Jan
Rotterdam, who returned to South Africa in triumph. Upon the receipt of
the complaints from the Cape concerning him and the governor’s comments
upon what had occurred, the governor-general and council of India
appointed a commission consisting of the ordinary councillor Pieter de
Vos and the councillor extraordinary Hendrik Bekker to investigate the
matter, and take Rotterdam’s evidence. On the 18th of September 1706
these gentlemen sent in a report, of which there is a copy in the Cape
archives. On this the governor-general and council decided, on the 5th
of October, to send all the papers to the Netherlands, that the
directors might take what action they chose in the matter. On the 31st
of August they had decided to give Rotterdam a free passage to Holland,
with liberty on his arrival at the Cape to request permission to remain
here to attend to his affairs, if he chose to do so.[78] There was no
necessity for him to make any request, as before the fleet left Table
Bay the tyranny of the governor was at an end.
IV.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE NETHERLANDS REGARDING GOVERNOR WILLEM ADRIAAN VAN DER
STEL.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
While these events were taking place in South Africa, a commission in
Amsterdam was actually making inquiries into the conduct of Governor
Willem Adriaan van der Stel. He knew nothing of this, nor did the
burghers know how information concerning his conduct had reached the
Netherlands.[79] By some means, however, which cannot be ascertained
now, the directors had obtained an inkling of the state of affairs, and
on the 26th of October 1705 they appointed the members of the chamber of
Amsterdam a commission to inquire into the matter and report upon it.
This commission had the official correspondence from the Cape before it,
but no mention could be found in that of either Vergelegen or the
governor’s movements. It would seem from it as if everything was going
on smoothly and satisfactorily at the Cape, and the governor was doing
his duty as an honest man.
Other tidings reached Amsterdam, however, in the course of the next few
months which caused the directors to become alarmed. What these reports
were exactly it is not now possible to discover, nor can the channels be
ascertained by which they were conveyed, but it cannot be far wrong to
conclude that they referred to the governor’s frequent visits to
Vergelegen and his long sojourns there, when the castle and the
garrison were left to take care of themselves. With a governor so
faithless, if what they heard was true, they might lose the half way
house to India any day, and so on the 8th of March 1706 they appointed a
special committee representing all the chambers and including their two
advocates to devise measures for the security of the settlement.[80]
[Sidenote: Examination into the Governor’s Conduct.]
Meantime, on the 15th of February 1706 the chamber of Amsterdam had
appointed a committee, consisting of Messrs. Bas, Van Castricum, De
Witt, Lestevenon, and Trip, with Advocate Scott, to examine thoroughly
into the complaints against the governor and bring up a report on the
subject.[81] So there can be no doubt that even if the charges drawn up
by Adam Tas and sent to Holland by the return fleet of 1706 had not
reached the directors, the circumstances connected with Vergelegen would
have become known, and the faithless and rapacious governor have met
with his deserts. But as the material upon which to form a judgment was
not as perfect in Holland as could be wished, the arrival of the fleet
then on its way from India to Europe was looked forward to with some
anxiety by both the committees, as it would probably bring despatches
from the governor and council of policy that would assist them to come
to a decision.
On the 27th of July 1706 that fleet which, as has been recorded, sailed
from Table Bay on the 4th of April under Admiral Jan de Wit, reached
Texel in safety. There was then no lack of evidence as to what had
transpired at the Cape, it was to hand in fact in superabundance. As
soon therefore as the directors had read the official despatches from
the governor, including the testimonial in his favour which he had
caused to be drawn up and which must have excited their contempt for a
man who could adopt such a measure in face of his treachery that could
no longer be concealed, they sent the whole to the chamber of Amsterdam.
Of the four burghers exiled to Europe, one, Jan van Meerland, died on
the passage. The others, as soon as they could do so after their arrival
in Amsterdam, presented to the directors the memorial that Tas had drawn
up, with the various documents attached to it. After being read by them,
it also was sent to the chamber of Amsterdam.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
But now a great change in the attitude of the East India Company towards
the nature of the various offences committed by the governor took place.
His defiance of their orders not to cultivate ground or own cattle, his
treachery in leaving his duty and residing frequently at Vergelegen,
thus exposing the colony to the utmost danger, and his use of their
materials and their workpeople at Vergelegen and elsewhere, robbery as
it was, was permitted to fall into the background, and his lawless
violence towards the burghers who had complained of his misdeeds became
the most prominent subject enquired into. The whole of the tyranny
displayed by him was not indeed known, but sufficient had transpired
before the departure of the fleet from Table Bay to rouse the
indignation of the free Netherlanders, and the directors, even if they
had not been disposed to do justice themselves, dared not provoke an
outcry that one of the most cherished rights of a citizen was being
violated in their dependency at the Cape. The opponents of the Company,
the men who wanted something in its place in which they should have a
personal interest, would certainly make use of such an outcry to attack
it in the States-General, and therefore this charge must be attended to
before any other.
[Sidenote: Lame Excuses of the Governor.]
The committee of the chamber of Amsterdam investigated the matter very
thoroughly. Unfortunately the debates were not recorded, and only the
resolutions were preserved, just as in the proceedings of a legislative
body to-day. But these resolutions show that all possible trouble was
taken to arrive at the truth, and notwithstanding the urgency of the
case, there was no undue haste, for it was only on the 11th of October
1706 that a report to the chamber was sent in.[82] In addition to the
documents examined by the committee, it had taken the evidence of the
exiled burghers and of the ships’ officers who had been two months at
the Cape. Some of these had lived on shore during that time, and had
witnessed the violent acts that had put the whole settlement into
confusion and the manner in which signatures to the certificate in the
governor’s favour were obtained, so that document was held as of no
weight whatever. The governor’s comments upon the charges against him
also were so weak that they were utterly valueless.[83]
For instance, his only excuse for his possession of Vergelegen was that
if the Company’s servants had no land they, himself included, would be
obliged to buy what grain, cattle, wine, vegetables, fruit, and other
necessaries they required from unreasonable farmers at whatever rates
might be demanded, and might even be at the mercy of those farmers to be
supplied or not. This would surely, he said, be intolerable to officials
of rank. That was the best and indeed the only excuse he could make for
having in his possession, in opposition to the direct orders of the
directors, a thousand head of horned cattle and eighteen thousand eight
hundred sheep, for producing eleven hundred muids of wheat and fifty-six
leggers of wine yearly. And that too when he was provided by the Company
with rations[84] on an exceedingly liberal scale, when he was legally
and honestly entitled to whatever vegetables and fruit he needed for his
own family’s use out of the Company’s gardens in Capetown, at
Rustenburg, and at Newlands, when he had an adequate table allowance in
money to purchase anything else that was needed, as may be seen in the
yearly accounts, and when he was provided with twenty slaves as
domestics, who were entirely maintained by the Company.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]