without payment, his defence was that he had sent out two men to obtain
them either in exchange for others or for money, that they had returned
with one hundred and seventy-eight, and that he thought he had paid for
them. He denied positively that he had taken bribes for giving
title-deeds to ground, but it was proved conclusively that he had
received large presents and had made extensive purchases without payment
from those whom be favoured. The whole defence was as weak as these
examples, except in a few particulars, and with the oral evidence
against him, the committee could only come to one conclusion.
[Sidenote: Report of the Chamber of Amsterdam.]
The chamber of Amsterdam approved of the report of its committee, and
requested the members to go over it again carefully and draw it up in
such a form that it could be presented in the name of the full body to
the assembly of seventeen. On the 25th of October accordingly the report
was brought before the full chamber and adopted, when it was signed by
all the members present, sixteen in number, and was then forwarded to
the directors. Among those who signed it was the same Wouter
Valckenier[85] who had granted Vergelegen to Van der Stel, who was then
a member of the chamber of Amsterdam, and immediately afterwards was
elected to a seat in the directorate.
In this report the burghers who signed the complaints against Van der
Stel and others were acquitted of sedition, conspiracy, or treason, and
the action of the governor towards them was consequently declared to
have been unjust.
It was recommended
That all those banished from the Cape should be restored to their homes
at the Company’s expense, and all those imprisoned be liberated.
That recompense should be made to the banished men for the damages
sustained by them, either by giving contracts to them or allowing them
to take anything they needed to the Cape free of charge for freight.
That the governor Willem Adriaan van der Stel, the secunde Samuel
Elsevier, the clergyman Petrus Kalden, and the landdrost Jan Starrenburg
should be recalled at once, but be permitted to retain their salaries
and rank, though without any authority.
That Frans van der Stel should be required to remove from the Company’s
possessions.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
That the estate Vergelegen at Hottentots-Holland, as acquired wrongfully
and without proper authority, and for the possession of which approval
was never obtained, should be restored to the Company with all the
plants on it, and that the buildings should be taken over on a
valuation.
That enquiry should be made into the manner in which the retired
governor Simon van der Stel became possessed of his landed property,
especially of the Great Rietland or Zeekoe Valley, and a report thereon
be sent to the Assembly of Seventeen.
That thereafter no servant of the Company should be permitted to hold
any land in property or on lease, or possess any cattle, or traffic in
cattle, corn, or wine, directly or indirectly.
That every colonist should be free to slaughter and sell cattle, and
that contracts should be made to supply the Company’s passing ships with
flesh at thirteen duiten a pound.
That the license to sell wine should be disposed of in four parts.
And finally that emigration to the Cape should cease.
This report was adopted by the assembly of seventeen on the 26th of
October, and four days later, 30th of October 1706, a letter signed by
the directors was delivered to the master of the ship _Kattendyk_, then
lying at Texel ready for sea, with orders to deliver it to the governor
Willem Adriaan van der Stel in presence of witnesses.[86] The
_Kattendyk_ with four other Indiamen left Texel on the 25th of December
1706 under convoy of four ships of war, but after leaving the Channel
she lost sight of the rest of the fleet, so she came on alone,
fortunately without falling in with French cruisers, and anchored in
Table Bay in the morning of the 16th of April 1707. The skipper took
the letter on shore, and delivered it to the governor as directed.
[Sidenote: Recall of the Governor.]
On Sunday the 17th the council of policy assembled, when the despatch of
the directors was read. It announced that the governor Willem Adriaan
van der Stel, the secunde Samuel Elsevier, the clergyman Petrus Kalden,
and the landdrost Jan Starrenburg were removed from office and ordered
to proceed to Europe with the least possible delay. That everything
might be conducted fairly and justly with regard to them, however, they
were allowed to retain their rank and pay until they should have an
opportunity of clearing themselves from the charges against them, if
that was possible. The governor’s brother, Frans van der Stel, was to
betake himself to some place outside of the Company’s possessions. The
burghers were acquitted of the absurd charge of conspiracy, sedition,
mutiny, and rebellion, they were reinstated in all their former rights
and privileges, the three sent to Europe were restored to their homes at
the Company’s expense, and orders were given that if any were in prison
in the colony they should immediately be released. The governor was
ordered to pay out of his own pocket at the rate of 6_s._ 8_d._ each for
the woolled sheep he had acquired, and the wine and slaughter licenses
were to be issued at once in the same manner as had been the custom
before he altered them to suit his own purposes.
It was announced that Louis van Assenburgh, who had previously been an
officer in the army of the German emperor, had been appointed governor,
and Johan Cornelis d’Ableing, recently commander at Palembang, secunde.
In case neither of these should arrive in the colony at an early date,
the administration was to be assumed by the independent fiscal Johan
Blesius and the other members of the council of policy acting as a
commission.[87]
The Mauritius packet had not yet sailed, and the fiscal, who was
directed by the assembly of seventeen to carry out their instructions,
at once set at liberty the five burghers Adam Tas, Jacob Louw, Jacobus
van Brakel, Hercules du Pré, and Guillaume du Toit. Tidings that they
were to be released and that the tyranny of the governor was at an end
had reached the townspeople, and the principal inhabitants assembled on
the open ground before the castle to welcome their countrymen as they
landed on the jetty or came from the dungeons in which they had been
confined, and great was the joy and sincere were the thanks poured out
to the God of heaven, mingled with gratitude to the directors, that
justice had triumphed and oppression and misrule were things of the
past. Of what occurred at Stellenbosch and Drakenstein when the glad
tidings reached those places no information is given in our archives,
but it may be taken as certain that the joy there was at least as great
and deepfelt as it was in Capetown. To the men of those districts it was
due that tyranny and corruption had been overthrown, and from that time
forward Stellenbosch and Drakenstein have been the centres of Dutch
South African thought and action to a much greater extent than any other
parts of the country.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
There is a legend that the man who suffered most from violence
henceforth called his farm Libertas, to signify that freedom had been
won, or, as he wittily explained to inquirers as to the meaning of the
term, to denote that Tas was free. The place is still so called.
The council resolved that the administration should be transferred to
the fiscal and others on the 15th of May, if the newly-appointed
secunde, who was on his way out, should not arrive before that date. It
was Sunday, and the reverend Mr. Kalden preached twice in the church.
During the week an arrangement was made by which the reverend Messrs. Le
Boucq and Bek should conduct the services on alternate Sundays in
Capetown, and Mr. Kalden ceased to officiate. Starrenburg, whose last
report was that the mutineers were constantly reviling him and that
only a Masaniello was wanting to produce an open outbreak, was sent by
the fiscal on board a ship in the return fleet. An officer named Samuel
Martin de Meurs was appointed to act provisionally as landdrost.
[Sidenote: Views of the Directors.]
Johan Cornelis d’Ableing, the newly-appointed secunde, arrived on the
6th of May 1707. He was a nephew of the recalled governor Van der Stel,
and, under pretence that the books required to be balanced, postponed
taking over the administration until the 3rd of June. The recalled
officials could not then leave for Europe before the arrival of the
homeward bound fleet of the following year.
From the vast quantity of contemporaneous printed and manuscript matter
relating to the conduct of Willem Adriaan van der Stel, the views of the
directors and of the colonists concerning the government of the country
and the rights of its people can be gathered with great precision. In
the Netherlands at that period representative institutions, such as are
now believed to be indispensable to liberty, were unknown. Yet the
people were free in reality as well as in name. There is not a word
expressing a wish on the part of the burghers for an alteration in the
form of government, what they desired being merely that the
administration should be placed in honest hands, and that their rights
should be respected.
The directors desired to have here a large body of freemen in
comfortable circumstances, loyal to the fatherland, ready and willing to
assist in the defence of the colony if attacked, enjoying the same
rights as their peers in Europe, and without much diversity of rank or
position. They stated clearly and distinctly that the closer the
equality between the burghers could be preserved the more satisfactory
it would be to them. Positive orders were issued that large tracts of
land, upon which several families could obtain a living, were not to be
granted to any individual.
In giving directions concerning Vergelegen, they stated that as its
grant by the commissioner Valckenier to the governor was improper and
had never been reported to them and much less had their approval been
requested or given, they resumed possession of the ground. The large
dwelling-house upon it, being adapted for ostentation and not for the
use of a farmer, must be broken down. The late governor could sell the
materials for his own benefit. The other buildings could be fairly
valued, and the amount be paid to Mr. Van der Stel, or he could break
them down and dispose of the materials if he preferred to do so.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
An estate such as Vergelegen would by many people to-day be considered
useful as a model. Van der Stel had laid it out with the choicest vines,
plants, and trees, and was making extensive experiments there. The
ground was the most skilfully tilled in the whole country. But the
directors held that such a farm as this, owned by one individual and
cultivated chiefly by slave labour, could not be of the same advantage
to the infant colony as a number of smaller ones, each in possession of
a sturdy European proprietor. It was therefore not to be sold as a
single estate, but was to be divided into several farms, each of which
was to be disposed of by public auction separately from the others.
Frans van der Stel was required to sell his property and remove to some
country not included in the Company’s charter. The former governor Simon
van der Stel was left in possession of his farm Constantia, but
directions were given that upon his death the other land which he held
should revert to the Company.
Emphatic instructions were issued that for the future, in accordance
with the orders of the 26th of April 1668, no servant of the Company,
from the highest to the lowest, was to own or lease land in the colony,
or to trade directly or indirectly in corn, wine, or cattle. Those who
had landed property could sell it, but if they should not do so within a
reasonable period, it would be confiscated. The burghers were not to be
molested in their right to dispose of their cattle or the produce of
their ground in any way that suited them. They were to be governed in
accordance with law and justice.
[Sidenote: Views of the Colonists.]
On their part, the colonists claimed exactly the same rights as if they
were still living in the fatherland. They held that any restrictions to
which the early burghers had agreed were of a temporary nature, and
affected only those who had consented to them. In their opinion they had
forfeited nothing by removal to a dependency, and the violence displayed
by the governor towards Adam Tas and his associates was as outrageous as
if it had taken place in the city of Amsterdam. They asserted their
undoubted right to personal liberty, to exemption from arrest unless
under reasonable suspicion of crime, to admission to bail, to speedy
trial before a proper court of justice, to freedom to sell to anyone,
burgher or foreigner, whatever their land produced, after the tithes had
been paid and the Company’s needs had been supplied, except under
special circumstances when restriction was needed for the good of the
community. And these claims, made in as explicit terms as they could be
to-day by an Englishman living in a crown colony, were not challenged by
the directors or the Indian authorities, but were accepted by every one
as unquestioned. They were the ideals of the proper working and spirit
of government held by the great bulk of the people of the Netherlands at
the beginning of the eighteenth century, before democratic principles or
socialistic views had gained ground among the labouring classes or were
even dimly foreshadowed in the minds of men who toiled with their hands
for their bread. Such a system answered admirably in the fatherland, and
the Cape burghers desired to maintain it unimpaired in South Africa.
Mr. Van der Stel retired to Vergelegen, and began arranging matters so
that he could leave the country with as little pecuniary loss as
possible. His friends and connections in Amsterdam were numerous and
influential, and he cherished the hope that through their agency the
directors might be induced to leave him in possession of the estate. He
does not seem to have realised how serious his offences had been and how
impossible it was that he should be forgiven. But as he had now only his
own servants and slaves to work with, it was necessary to contract his
farming operations, and under any circumstances it would be wise to
dispose of his great flocks and herds with the least possible delay. For
this, so unlike the case of the men whom he had hurried out of the
colony, he had ample time. There is very little information in the
archives of occurrences at Vergelegen during those months, though
several commissions visited the place, so nothing beyond what is here
mentioned can be related.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
On the 25th of January 1708 Governor Louis van Assenburgh arrived. He
had been eight months on the passage from Holland, and had been obliged
to put into a port on the coast of Brazil. In the same ship with the
governor was Henning Huising, one of the deported burghers, who had
entered into a contract with the directors for the supply of half the
meat required by the Company at the Cape during the next three years,
the object of dividing the contract being to secure competition in
purchasing cattle from the burghers. Pieter van der Byl and Ferdinandus
Appel had reached the colony seven months before.
When the arrival of the governor was known at Vergelegen, Mr. Van der
Stel sent a petition to the council of policy requesting that he might
be allowed to retain the estate a few months longer, as he had hopes
that by the next fleet from Europe intelligence would be received that
the directors had mitigated their decision. As compliance with this
request would have been directly opposed to the orders of the 30th of
October 1706, a matter which he seemed to regard as of little
importance, but which the new governor decidedly objected to, the
council refused to entertain it, and the utmost that he could obtain was
permission to press the grapes then ripening and dispose of half the
wine on his own account, the other half to be for the Company. The
quantity pressed was fifty-six leggers of five hundred and seventy-six
litres each.
[Sidenote: Dismissal of the Governor.]
On the 23rd of February 1708 Henning Huising summoned Mr. Van der Stel
before the court of justice for £3,056 in addition to the value of nine
thousand sheep. This gave the late governor an opportunity to request
the council of policy to allow him to remain in South Africa another
year, in order to get evidence to defend himself in this case; but upon
Huising stating that he preferred bringing the action in Holland to
being the means of keeping Van der Stel longer in the colony, the
council declined to accede to his request.
On the 23rd of April 1708 the return fleet of this year sailed from
Table Bay for Europe, having on board the late governor, secunde, and
clergyman of Capetown with their families. Upon their arrival at
Amsterdam Van der Stel and Elsevier were dismissed from the Company’s
service. They had left agents in the colony to wind up their affairs and
to transmit the proceeds to them. Mr. Kalden was more fortunate, for,
though his possession of a farm was not approved of, he did not come in
the same category as members of the council and of the court of justice,
and he was able to make a good defence as far as his motives were
concerned. He was retained in the service, and several years afterwards
was sent as a chaplain to India.
Vergelegen was divided into four farms, which were sold by auction in
October 1709. The cultivated land was found on measurement to be six
hundred and thirteen morgen in extent. The large dwelling-house was
broken down, and the material was sold for Van der Stel’s benefit. The
other buildings were taken over by the Company for £625, though the
materials of which they were constructed were appraised at a much higher
sum. The four farms brought £1,695 at public sale, the purchasers being
Barend Gildenhuis, Jacobus van der Heiden, Jacob Malan, and the widow of
Gerrit Cloete.
Frans van der Stel returned to Europe in the same fleet with his
brother, and took up his residence in Amsterdam. His wife, Johanna
Wessels, was a daughter of one of the leading burghers of the colony.
She remained behind with her parents to dispose of the property to the
best advantage, and did not leave to rejoin her husband until April
1717.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
After his dismissal from the Company’s service, Willem Adriaan van der
Stel was in the most unenviable position that can be imagined, though he
was now possessed of considerable wealth. In the city of Amsterdam,
where he had once been a magistrate and where he had numerous
respectable relatives and connections, he was a disgraced man. In order
to try to make his conduct appear less reprehensible in the eyes of the
public, he prepared and published the volume called the _Korte
Deductie_, in which the most serious of his offences were entirely
ignored, and the certificate in his favour and the forced declarations
from several burghers that have been described were set forth as proofs
of his innocence with regard to others. As may well be believed, such a
volume completely failed in its object. The burghers in South Africa
were under no necessity to reply to it, for its weakness was evident to
every one, but two of them did so, and in their _Contra Deductie_
published such a number of depositions made under oath as utterly to
destroy it.
There is one circumstance in connection with this matter that has been
commented upon by several historians, notably by the late Judge
Watermeyer in his _Lectures_, that is the lightness of the punishment
inflicted on Van der Stel. Mr. Watermeyer attributed it to the assembly
of seventeen not feeling aversion towards his tyranny. But that view is
not borne out by the documents of the time when minutely examined, for
the directors certainly did express the strongest disapprobation of his
conduct in trampling on law and justice. Nor was the leniency of their
treatment of him altogether due to their wish to avoid irritating his
influential relatives, though that may have had something to do with
it. The main cause was simply that Mr. Wouter Valckenier, who was one of
the directors at the time, could not absolve himself from all blame in
the matter, for he had granted part of Vergelegen to Van der Stel,
without reflecting upon what the consequences might be. The governor had
abused his confidence, still he was not free of blame. And so nothing
but the ground was resumed, and the delinquent was not even compelled to
make good to the Company the amount which he had defrauded it of.
[Sidenote: One Effect of the Governor’s Tyranny.]
The punishment of Willem Adriaan van der Stel, though mild, had the
effect of securing to the Cape colonists good government, as it was then
held to be, for more than half a century after his recall. The spirit of
the burghers was not broken, as it would have been if he had remained in
power, and a liberty loving people had time, in God’s good providence,
to secure a firm foothold in South Africa.
There was an effect upon the South African colonists that these troubles
produced which makes them memorable in our history. They blended the
different nationalities together so firmly that thereafter they were
absolutely inseparable. There is nothing that tends more to make men and
women sympathise with each other than suffering in a common cause, and
in this instance Hollander and Huguenot alike had resisted and felt the
vengeance of the tyrant. When Du Toit and Du Pré, liberated from the
vessel that was to have taken them into exile at Mauritius, met Tas and
Louw, staggering from the dungeons in which they had been so long
confined, can anyone doubt that they greeted each other as brothers? Our
archives tell us nothing of that scene on the parade ground before the
castle, but they do tell us very plainly that from that day onward there
was no jealousy, no ill-feeling of any kind, between Dutchmen and
Frenchmen in the colony. Thereafter all were Afrikanders.
How could it be otherwise? It is not too much for even a historian
seeking only for truth to assume that the sisterhood of the women also
had been cemented by their common misery, that Mevrouw Van der Byl, for
instance, would feel an affection stronger far than mere sympathy for
Madame Du Toit, who, like herself, had seen her husband torn from her
and sent into banishment, probably for ever unless God and the directors
should curb the merciless oppressor’s will. The names on the memorial
show an equal number of French and Dutch, and among them are those of
the heads of many of the best families in South Africa at the present
day. They can look back with pride to the action of their ancestors in
resisting corruption so gross and tyranny so outrageous as that of
Willem Adriaan van der Stel, and in thinking of the suffering those
brave men and women endured, they can thank God that it was not in vain,
since it was productive of so much good.
[Sidenote: Historical Sketches.]
The Van der Stel family attained its highest point of celebrity in the
time of the sons of Simon, the grandsons of Adriaan who went to India in
1623. According to Van der Aa, Willem Adriaan, after his dismissal,
purchased the estates of Old and New Vossemeer, and died on the 1st of
July 1723, leaving five children. Adriaan became governor of Amboina and
councillor extraordinary of India, and left three children. Hendrik was
warehouse keeper at Malacca in 1705, but nothing more is known of him.
It is a saying in the United States that the stage from shirt sleeve to
shirt sleeve is usually covered in only three generations, and the
observation would seem to be correct in this case. Van der Aa could find
no one of the name of Van der Stel worthy of notice after the third
generation had passed away, except A. van der Stel, who drew plates for
a work on natural history published in 1754, and a woman of the name who
was an actress and stage dancer in the middle of the eighteenth
century.[88]
IV.
_Chronicles of Two Leaders of the Great Emigration, Louis Triegard and
Pieter Uys._
SKETCH IV.
I.
CHRONICLES OF TWO LEADERS OF THE GREAT EMIGRATION, LOUIS TRIEGARD AND
PIETER UYS.