Boer History1707 at the Cape of Good Hope: Kattendyk Letter, Libertas, d’Ableing Administration, and Le Boucq’s Church Crisis
Arrests of Du Pré and Van Brakel, and Arbitrary Heemraden — February–March 1707
The open conflict of 1706 still held the country districts when the new year opened. Landdrost Johannes Starrenburg continued his hunt for the burghers sentenced in August for contumacy, who had fled to the Twenty-four Rivers after the failed night march to the Kuilen. On the 4th of February 1707 he succeeded in arresting Hercules du Pré and Jacobus van Brakel, who were sent on board the Mauritius packet. A month later Guillaume du Toit was also arrested. During the same weeks governor Wilhem Adriaan van der Stel 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. [3]
Those seizures kept the Mauritius packet in Table Bay at the very moment when the homeward-bound fleet from Batavia and a ship from Europe were about to change the balance of the quarrel. The governor’s nominees in the country offices, and the three contumacy prisoners held for embarkation, still stood as symbols of an administration that had treated memorial politics as sedition. That structure had only weeks left once Amsterdam’s sealed letter reached the bay. [3]
Jan Rotterdam’s Return and Private Letters of a Favourable Decision — Early 1707
At this juncture the homeward bound fleet arrived from Batavia, and in one of the ships was Jan Rotterdam, who returned to the colony in triumph. The governor-general and council of India had taken no notice whatever of the charges made against him by the Cape authorities, but had treated him with exceptional kindness and given him a free passage back. A ship also arrived from Europe and brought letters to some of the burghers informing them that their case had been decided favourably by the directors. As yet no official despatches had been received, but private correspondence already told the settlement that Amsterdam had condemned the governor’s course. [3]
Of the four burghers sent to Europe in 1706, one, Jan van Meerland, had died on the passage home. The others, on arriving at Amsterdam, had presented to the directors the memorial which Adam Tas had drawn up. The charges made by the Cape authorities had already been received, as had the governor’s denial of some of the statements and explanation of others. In a matter of this kind the Company needed promptitude as well as justice: it had numerous and powerful enemies always watching for an opportunity to arraign it before the States General, and a charge of oppression of free Netherlanders in one of its colonies would be a formidable weapon. A commission of investigation had therefore been appointed without delay, and the documents laid before it. That commission’s report condemning the governor and those who acted with him was the basis of the letter the settlement still awaited in official form. [3]
The Kattendyk Delivers the Seventeen’s Letter — 16 April 1707
On the 16th of April 1707 the Kattendyk from Texel cast anchor in Table Bay, and her skipper, in presence of witnesses as he had been instructed to do, delivered to the governor a letter from the Assembly of Seventeen dated the 30th of October 1706. The letter announced that governor Wilhem Adriaan van der Stel, the secunde Samuel Elsevier, the clergyman Petrus Kalden, and the landdrost Johannes Starrenburg were removed from office and ordered to proceed to Europe with the first opportunity. The governor’s brother, Frans van der Stel, was to betake himself to some place outside of the Company’s possessions. [3]
The burghers were acquitted of conspiracy; 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 be immediately released. 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. [3]
Tas Freed and Libertas Named; Starrenburg Shipped; Kalden Ceases — April–May 1707
The Mauritius packet had not sailed when the letter arrived, 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. The first named 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. [3]
Next morning the council of policy met. It was 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 Rev. Mr. Kalden preached twice in the church. During the week an arrangement was made by which the Rev. Messrs. Le Boucq and Bek should conduct the services on alternate Sundays at the Cape, 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 returning to Europe. An officer named Samuel Martin de Meurs was appointed to act provisionally as landdrost. [3]
d’Ableing Arrives and Takes Over the Administration — May–June 1707
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 8th of June 1707 d’Ableing stood as acting head of the government, a tenure that would run until governor Louis van Assenburgh was installed on the 1st of February 1708. [3]
From the vast quantity of contemporaneous printed and manuscript matter relating to the complaints against Wilhem 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 precision. In the Netherlands at that period representative institutions of the modern kind 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 was merely that the administration should be placed in honest hands, and that their rights should be respected. [3]
Vergelegen Resumed and Company Servants Barred from Farming — 1707
The directors desired to have at the Cape 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 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. [3]
In giving directions concerning Vergelegen, they stated that as its grant by the commissioner Valckenier to the governor had never been reported to them, 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 material for his own benefit. The other buildings and improvements could be fairly valued and the amount paid to Mr. Van der Stel, or he could break them down and dispose of the materials if he preferred. The ground must then be divided into four farms, and each be sold separately by auction. An estate such as Vergelegen would by many later observers be considered useful as a model—Van der Stel had imported choice vines, plants, and trees and tilled the ground with unusual skill—but the directors held that one large farm owned by an 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. [3]
For this reason 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 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. [3]
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 consented to them. In their opinion they had forfeited nothing by removal to a dependency, and the violence displayed by the governor toward Adam Tas and his associates was as outrageous as if it had taken place in the city of Amsterdam. They asserted undoubted right to personal liberty, exemption from arrest unless under reasonable suspicion of crime, admission to bail, speedy trial before a proper court of justice, and freedom to sell to any one—burgher or foreigner—except under special circumstances when restriction was needed for the good of the community, whatever their land produced after the tithes had been paid and the Company’s needs supplied. These claims were not challenged by the directors or even the partisans of the late governor, but were accepted by every one as unquestioned. The directors were fully aware that a colony of free Netherlanders was to be ruled in a different manner from a dependency inhabited by Asiatics. [3]
Hermanus Bosman at Drakenstein and Church Arrangements — June 1707
The only circumstance of note during the few months that the secunde d’Ableing was at the head of the government, beyond the slow settling of the recall, was the violent conduct of the Rev. Mr. Le Boucq, which caused much disquiet in the community. That clergyman had arrived at the Cape at a time of clamour and strife, and instead of preaching peace at once became a promoter of further discord. He took side with the colonists, though there was no good object to be gained by his entering into party politics, since all that the burghers had contended for was secured. He was conversant with the Portuguese language, and could therefore have been of greater service in India than at the Cape, but as he was of quarrelsome disposition the authorities at Batavia were glad to get rid of him. [3]
Upon Mr. Le Boucq’s arrival at the Cape, the Rev. Mr. Bek had removed to Stellenbosch, that the new clergyman might enter upon his duties; but as soon as Le Boucq ascertained that there was neither church nor parsonage at Drakenstein, he declined to take up the work. Before any pressure could be put upon him, Mr. Kalden was suspended, and the government then decided that Messrs. Bek and Le Boucq should conduct the services at the Cape on alternate Sundays. After a little, the two ministers arranged between themselves that Le Boucq should take all the services at the Cape, Mr. Bek going occasionally to Drakenstein; and to this the government made no objection. [3]
The Dutch sick comforter of Drakenstein had some time previously been transferred to the Cape, and the council now resolved to send some one else there. On the 8th of June 1707 Mr. Hermanus Bosman, sick comforter of the ship Overryp, was selected for the post. Thereafter he conducted service in Dutch, and Mr. Paul Roux in French, at the houses of farmers at Drakenstein, except when the Rev. Mr. Bek went over from Stellenbosch. [3]
Le Boucq’s Sermon and Deposition of Church Officers — 28 August 1707
In the morning of Sunday the 28th of August 1707 the congregation of the Cape assembled in the church and listened to an exciting sermon prepared and read by the Rev. Mr. Le Boucq. He had chosen as text the first verse of the 29th chapter of Proverbs, and had previously given out the last two verses of the 149th psalm to be sung. According to his exposition, the saints were the burghers who had recently made a stand for freedom, and the noble who hardened his neck and was in consequence destroyed was the recalled governor Van der Stel. At the last election of church officers, Abraham Poulle, who was in the government service, had been chosen elder, and the burgher Jan Oberholster, who submitted quietly to the ruling of the authorities, had been appointed deacon. When the service was ended, the clergyman announced that these persons were deprived of their offices, and exhorted the congregation not to acknowledge them any longer. [3]
This proceeding took most of the congregation by surprise, and caused great excitement to many individuals. One woman fainted, and was carried out of the church to the hospital. No member of the government or of the consistory anticipated anything of the kind, though they were accustomed to very eccentric acts of the clergyman. The members of the council of policy at once retired and held a consultation, after which they sent a request to Mr. Le Boucq not to conduct service in the afternoon—a request which he construed into an order. [3]
Next morning he sent a letter to the council, in which he asserted his right as a clergyman to depose elders and deacons without assigning any reason for doing so, and protested against interference by lay officials in spiritual matters. He followed this up by a letter on the 6th of September, in which he stated that he did not intend to perform service again until the council admitted his views to be correct. Thereupon the council suspended payment of his salary, and instructed Mr. Bek to assume duty at the Cape. Mr. Kalden was requested to assist in the emergency, and showed himself very willing to do so, by holding service occasionally so as to allow Mr. Bek to visit Stellenbosch and Drakenstein. [3]
Maria Lindenhof’s Confinement and Le Boucq’s Litigation — Autumn 1707
By the more violent members of the party which he had espoused, Mr. Le Boucq was now regarded as a martyr. He went about declaiming against the government and stirring up people’s passions until it was considered necessary to bring him to task. Certain language of his was reported to the government, upon which it was intended to bring a charge. The principal witness was Maria Lindenhof, daughter of a clergyman in Overyssel, wife of Henning Huising, and aunt of Adam Tas. Upon being questioned, she asserted that she had forgotten what he had said. The court of justice then decided to confine her for eight days to her own house, and then to place her under civil arrest if she did not in the mean time give correct evidence. She remained obdurate, and after eight days was confined in a suite of rooms in the castle. A petition for her release, signed by Tas, Grevenbroek, Van der Byl, and twenty-four others, men and women, was sent in, and after nine days’ detention in the castle the government thought it best to liberate her. [3]
Mr. Le Boucq next appeared before the court of justice as a litigant in a case with the Rev. Mr. Kalden, and, upon judgment being recorded against him, appealed to Batavia. There also the decision was against him. The council of policy would, early in the following year, resolve to send him back to Batavia with the first outward bound ship, but that deportation lay beyond the close of 1707; through the remainder of this year the quarrelsome clergyman remained a standing source of disturbance in Table Valley while d’Ableing held the administration and the recalled officials waited for the next homeward fleet. [3]
Orders to Withdraw the Garrison from Mauritius — February 1707
In February 1707 instructions were received at the Cape to withdraw the garrison from the island of Mauritius, hitherto a dependency of the Cape Colony. The island was of hardly any use as a station for refreshment, and beyond a little ebony and ambergris it contributed nothing to commerce. The directors had come to the conclusion that it was not worth the cost of maintaining a large garrison, and that with a small garrison it was not secure. Of late years the Company had sustained severe losses there: during the night of the 9th of February 1695 the residency and magazines had been destroyed by a violent hurricane; in 1701 a pirate ship wrecked near the settlement had put two hundred armed men ashore; and on the 15th of November 1707 the Company’s premises on the island were totally destroyed by fire, the books, records, and goods in the magazine being burned with everything else. [3]
When the intelligence of withdrawal reached the island, the burghers were found to be very averse to break up their homes, but as a matter of necessity nine heads of families elected to come to the Cape, the remainder preferring Batavia. The actual evacuation voyages of the Carthago and Mercurius would follow in September 1708; the Cape government’s work in 1707 was to receive the directors’ order, prepare the administrative winding-up of a dependency that had never paid its keep, and absorb the news of the November fire into the final abandonment. [3]
Close of 1707 at the Cape
By the end of 1707 the written verdict of the Assembly of Seventeen had been executed at the Cape in its first essentials. Starrenburg’s February arrests of Du Pré and Van Brakel, and the March seizure of Guillaume du Toit, had been overtaken by Rotterdam’s triumphant return from Batavia and by private European letters of a favourable decision; on the 16th of April the Kattendyk had delivered the letter of the 30th of October 1706 removing Van der Stel, Elsevier, Kalden, and Starrenburg, acquitting the burghers, naming Van Assenburgh and d’Ableing, and ordering immediate releases. Tas, Louw, Van Brakel, Du Pré, and Du Toit walked free; Tas renamed his farm Libertas; Starrenburg was shipped home; De Meurs acted as landdrost; Kalden ceased to officiate while Bek and Le Boucq covered the Cape pulpit. D’Ableing arrived on the 6th of May, delayed transfer until the 3rd of June, and from the 8th of June governed as acting head. Directors’ rules resumed Vergelegen for division into four farms, barred Company servants from land and produce trade, and affirmed burgher rights of sale and legal process. Bosman took the Drakenstein sick-comforter’s post on the 8th of June; Le Boucq’s 28 August sermon deposed Poulle and Oberholster and led to salary suspension, Bek’s assumption of Cape duty, and the autumn confinement of Maria Lindenhof. Mauritius withdrawal orders of February, capped by the November fire on the island, marked the end of that dependency’s place in Cape administration. The recalled officials still waited in the settlement for the next homeward fleet, and Van Assenburgh’s installation still lay in the first days of 1708, but the year had already turned Amsterdam’s sealed letter into released prisoners, a renamed farm, a new acting head, and a church quarrel that outlasted the political victory. [3]