Part 19

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.]

As for the woolled sheep that he was accused of taking from the farmers 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.