Boer History1708 at the Cape of Good Hope: Van Assenburgh Installed, Recalled Officials Depart, Simons, and Mauritius Evacuation
Council Orders Le Boucq’s Deportation — 17 January 1708
The church quarrel that had opened on the 28th of August 1707 still hung over Table Valley when the new year began. The Rev. Engelbertus François le Boucq had already lost his salary and the Cape pulpit after deposing elder Abraham Poulle and deacon Jan Oberholster, and he had been defeated before the court of justice in a suit against the recalled clergyman Petrus Kalden, with the same result on appeal at Batavia. By the more violent members of the party he had espoused he was still regarded as a martyr; he went about declaiming against the government and stirring up people’s passions long after the political victory of the Kattendyk letter had secured what the burghers had contended for. [3] [9]
In the belief that concord could not be expected at the Cape as long as this quarrelsome clergyman remained, the council of policy resolved on the 17th of January 1708 to send him back to Batavia with the first outward-bound ship. The resolution could not be carried into effect until the 13th of September of the same year. Through the intervening months Le Boucq remained in the settlement while a new governor arrived, the recalled officials prepared to leave, and the Cape church received a freshly appointed minister from Europe. [3]
The deportation order of January thus framed the year without closing the disturbance at once: it marked the council’s judgment that the August sermon and its aftermath had become an administrative problem rather than a local pastoral dispute. Le Boucq had arrived as minister for Drakenstein, refused the post when he found neither church nor parsonage nor Dutch parish clerk there, and had thereafter occupied the Cape pulpit under the Bek–Le Boucq covering arrangement until his own suspension of services and the government’s suspension of his pay. The January resolution was the council’s final administrative answer to a crisis that pastoral negotiation had failed to quiet. [3] [8]
The acting headship of the secunde Johan Cornelis d’Ableing had not eased the mood. A later castle portrait held that his conduct during the church difficulties—suspending the dominie and denying him access to his own church—had done nothing to restore confidence between government and citizens, and that, whether the suspension was applauded or condemned, it was the wrong thing to do in a time of growing consciousness of the rights free men should enjoy. The January order to ship Le Boucq to Batavia therefore closed d’Ableing’s last full month at the head of affairs with an administrative verdict the new governor would inherit rather than reopen. [3] [9]
Van Assenburgh Arrives and Is Installed — 25 January–1 February 1708
On the 25th of January 1708 governor Louis van Assenburgh arrived in Table Bay. Next morning he presided at a meeting of the council of policy, though he did not at once assume the direction of affairs. He had been eight months on the passage from Holland and had been obliged to put into a port on the coast of Brazil. The arrival at Table Valley was anticipated with nervous interest: what was he going to be—another tyrant? The free burghers formed a welcoming committee with a spokesman sufficiently stirred by the anti-despotism of the late struggle not to stammer before the new man. When that chairman voiced the settlers’ expectation that the colony would now be spared the oppression it had known under Wilhem Adriaan van der Stel, no reply followed. Van Assenburgh smiled, and, as the records put it, all of them were thanked in the sweetest, kindest, and most agreeable manner possible. [3] [9]
On the 1st of February 1708 he was formally installed in office, ending the acting administration of the secunde d’Ableing, which had run from the 3rd of June 1707—the transfer delayed from the May arrival under the pretence that the books required balancing—while another dating of the same acting headship begins on the 8th of June 1707 as the first full stretch of that office. The ceremony was made exceptionally impressive, to re-establish authority after the recall. Standing on the balcony of the Castle, flanked by d’Ableing and the independent fiscal Johan Blesius, Van Assenburgh delivered an affectionate and sweet speech. When at the end he asked whether they acknowledged him as their new governor, they shouted unanimously “Yes!” and cheered him till their throats were hoarse. Three volleys from the muskets of the soldiers, interspersed with the heavy guns of the Castle, drowned the echo; the ceremony closed with free drinking for the free burghers. [3] [9]
Van Assenburgh had previously been an officer in the army of the German Emperor and was described as a brave and skilful military officer. A contemporary clergyman-author who knew him held that he had commanded the Austrian Danube fleet before leaving that service, going to his brothers in Amsterdam, through whose influence the Cape appointment was later explained. In the colony he speedily developed a fondness for the pleasures of the table that caused some contemporaries to call him a winebibber, yet he carried out the directors’ instructions in letter and in spirit and won the regard of the burghers. He seldom left the castle. On New Year’s Day and on his birthday the principal burghers with their wives called between ten and eleven in the morning to present compliments, stayed to dinner, and usually left only at nine in the evening. At the yearly muster of the Cape district militia—one company of cavalry and two of infantry—the officers were entertained at the castle. He was friendly at these receptions and easy of access, but he did not court society in the manner of Simon van der Stel’s earlier years. [3] [9]
The smile and the sweet speeches did not mean that he was unable to act. One journal entry records that he severely reprimanded an English captain who, on arrival in Table Bay, did not honour the Dutch flag: he would shoot him from the roadstead for not saluting the castle; only after the guns had been fired was the visitor welcomed with courtesy and a glass of wine. Another records his overruling of a council decision about the appointment of a skipper. A third preserves an ultimatum to Peter Kolbe, who had done nothing for some time, neither pursuing his astronomical observations nor burgher service: if he remained longer he must be looked upon as a burgher and pay duty and taxes, or be sent back to Holland. The new governor thus mixed hospitality with a readiness to enforce the Company’s flag, appointments, and burgher obligations. [9]
The installation closed more than an interim. Since the Kattendyk letter of 16 April 1707 the settlement had lived under recall without a fully installed successor: Johannes Starrenburg shipped home, Kalden off the Cape pulpit, Van der Stel and Samuel Elsevier still in the colony drawing salaries, d’Ableing holding the books and the council. Van Assenburgh’s first days—presiding on the 26th of January, installed on the 1st of February—converted that provisional order into a permanent governorship charged to execute the Seventeen’s ban on Company servants farming, the Vergelegen orders, and the ordinary business of fleets, grain, and church peace. The ex-governor and his friends were still living at the Cape; the intermediate administration of d’Ableing, a kinsman of Wilhem Adriaan, had done nothing to dispel the ugly mood. The balcony installation of February was meant to end that suspense. [3] [9]
Clergyman d’Ailly and Henning Huising’s Return — Early February 1708
In the same ship with the governor was the Rev. Johannes Godfried d’Ailly (Johannes Godefridus), who had been appointed clergyman of the Cape and who preached here for the first time on the 5th of February. The voyage had lasted more than eight months, matching the governor’s delayed passage by way of Brazil. His arrival filled the pastoral gap left by Kalden’s suspension and by the breakdown of the Bek–Le Boucq arrangement of 1707, and it gave the settlement a minister sent out under the new order rather than a temporary covering of pulpits among men already entangled in the late quarrel. [3] [8]
Refugee lists of the same year record a related Cape arrival: Jean d’Ailly of Amsterdam, who had been living at Haarlem in 1696 with his wife Johanna de Potter, joined the Cape community in 1708; she later followed him, leaving David (born 1705) and Jan Benjamin. Johannes Godefridus, for his part, later married Alida de Lange, widow of the surgeon Francois Guto. The Cape pulpit of 1708 was thus filled by a new appointment from Europe, while another d’Ailly of the Amsterdam–Haarlem connection took his place among the free population. [8]
Henning Huising (also Huizing), one of the burghers deported to Europe in the struggle against Wilhem Adriaan van der Stel, was also on board. He 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. Pieter van der Byl and Ferdinandus Appel, likewise among those who had gone home in the burgher cause, had already reached the colony seven months before. The return of these men in 1708 brought the European phase of the memorial politics of 1705–1706 back into the settlement as living persons with contracts and lawsuits, not only as names in Amsterdam’s sealed letter. [3]
Huising’s wife, Maria Lindenhof, daughter of a clergyman in Overyssel and aunt of Adam Tas, had been the principal witness the court had pressed in the autumn Le Boucq enquiry, confined first to her house and then for nine days in a suite of rooms in the castle until a petition signed by Tas, Grevenbroek, Van der Byl, and twenty-four others secured her release. Her husband’s reappearance with a three-year meat contract therefore carried both commercial and political weight: the deported memorialist returned as a Company contractor, while the network that had defended his wife still held the country interest against the recalled officials who had not yet sailed. [3]
Vergelegen Grapes and Huising’s Suit against Van der Stel — February 1708
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 for 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. The council refused to comply, and the utmost 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. [3]
That limited harvest permission sat inside the larger Vergelegen orders already known since the Kattendyk year. The directors had resumed possession of ground whose grant by commissioner Wouter Valckenier had never been reported to them; the large dwelling house, adapted for ostentation rather than for the use of a farmer, was to be broken down, with the late governor free to sell the material; the other buildings might be valued and paid for or broken down at his choice; and the ground was to be divided into four farms and sold separately by auction. The February press of fifty-six leggers was therefore not a stay of judgment but a last practical concession on fruit already ripening while the estate still awaited demolition and partition. [3]
On the 23rd of February Henning Huising summoned Mr. Van der Stel before the court of justice for £8,056 in addition to the value of nine thousand sheep. The late governor then requested the council of policy to allow him to remain in South Africa for another year, in order to get evidence to defend himself in this case; but upon Huising stating that he preferred bringing the action in the Fatherland to being the means of keeping Van der Stel longer in the colony, the council declined to accede to the request. The February sittings thus closed Vergelegen’s last harvest under its recalled owner and converted the burgher–governor quarrel into a civil claim that would follow the parties to Europe. [3]
Huising’s choice of forum mattered as much as the sum claimed. By preferring the Fatherland he removed any pretext for prolonging the recalled governor’s residence and aligned the private suit with the public investigation that Adam Tas and Jacob van der Heiden would press before the directors once the return fleet sailed. The council’s refusal of a further year’s stay kept the Seventeen’s timetable: Vergelegen’s owner was to leave with the first opportunity, not to litigate indefinitely under Cape jurisdiction. [3]
Robbed of the magnificent estate, his dreams of a rewarding retirement in a beautiful country scattered, the recalled “Crown Prince” was already marked for return to the Netherlands in 1708, to live with the consequences of pride and extravagance for another twenty-five years. Before embarkation his father offered him and his brother Frans van der Stel a goodbye dinner at Constantia. Simon also wrote to his son-in-law Pieter van Rijn in Amsterdam, to sue Adam Tas—clear evidence that the retired governor still took an interest in Willem Adriaan’s difficulties, even if official records cared little for the whereabouts of retired executives. The February press and the February summons were the last Cape acts of that household before the fleet of April carried it away. [3] [9]
Return Fleet Carries Recalled Officials and Burgher Agents — 23 April 1708
On the 23rd of April 1708 the return fleet sailed, taking to Europe the late governor, the secunde Samuel Elsevier, and the clergyman of the Cape, with their families. Nineteen of the burghers empowered Adam Tas and Jacob van der Heiden to continue pressing their charges against the recalled officials, for these, though deprived of authority, were still servants of the Company and in receipt of their salaries. Tas and Van der Heiden therefore left in the same fleet. Another investigation took place in Amsterdam, which resulted in the absolute dismissal of Van der Stel, Elsevier, and Kalden from the Company’s service. They left agents in the colony to dispose of their estates and transmit the proceeds. [3]
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, daughter of one of the leading burghers of the colony, remained behind with her parents to dispose of the property to the best advantage. Wilhem Adriaan’s wife, Maria de Hase, followed her husband to the Netherlands. What 1708 completed at the Cape was the embarkation of the recalled household and the despatch of burgher agents to finish the case before the directors; the physical breaking-up of Vergelegen into four farms remained to be executed after the owner had gone. [3] [9]
The fleet’s passenger list was thus a political balance sheet of the struggle that had opened with Tas’s memorial. The recalled governor, secunde, and Cape clergyman sailed under orders dating from the Seventeen’s letter of 30 October 1706; Starrenburg had already gone in 1707; Frans van der Stel left the Company’s sphere as required; and the burgher side sent two of its own—Tas, free since the Mauritius packet’s release and the naming of Libertas, and Van der Heiden—to keep the charges alive until absolute dismissal closed the Company’s books on the clique. Agents left behind for the estates ensured that property liquidation would not depend on the presence of men the directors had determined to remove. [3]
Simon van der Stel’s interest in the embarkation was private rather than official. The Constantia dinner for the two sons, and the letter to Pieter van Rijn asking that Tas be sued in Amsterdam, showed that the father had not washed his hands of the stain on the name; yet he had no office from which to delay the fleet. The recalled governor left as a dismissed Company’s servant still drawing salary until Amsterdam’s second investigation made the dismissal absolute. For the burghers who had forced the Kattendyk letter, the April sailing was the visible end of the clique’s residence at the Cape. [3] [9]
Commissioner Simons and the Manumission Regulation — 19 April 1708
The return fleet of 1708 was under command of Cornelis Joan Simons, who had been the first independent fiscal at the Cape and had resided here in that capacity from 1690 to 1694. He had recently been governor of Ceylon, and was now empowered by the governor-general and council of India to act as commissioner during his stay in South Africa. He issued a number of regulations, of which the instruction that most shaped later practice concerned the emancipation of slaves. [3]
In his instructions to the Cape government, dated the 19th of April 1708, Simons directed that no slave was to be emancipated without security being given by the owner that the freed person should not become a charge upon the poor funds within ten years, according to the statutes of India. This was henceforth the law in South Africa. A later summary put the same turning more bluntly: by 1708 it had become necessary to forbid the emancipation of slaves unless the owners guaranteed that they would not become a public burden; in some cases abuse of freedom had later to be remedied by re-enslaving the individuals. The two accounts mesh on the guarantee; the ten-year poor-fund security of the statutes of India is the Cape form of that rule. [3] [4]
There was, however, one notable exception. Ladies returning from India to Europe frequently took slave girls with them as waiting maids, and gentlemen were sometimes accompanied by their valets; these slaves were almost invariably sent back again, as they could be of no service in the Netherlands. The directors ordered that such persons were to be treated as free people, proof of their having been on the soil of the republic to be equivalent to letters of manumission. [3]
The regulation reflected a longer shift in European practice at the Cape and in the Indies. Early justifications of African slavery had rested on heathen status, and a profession of Christianity—together, in some statements, with an ability to speak Dutch—had once sufficed to free a person and place him on a level in civil rights with his former masters. As time wore on, emancipation was less readily granted; colonial authorities increasingly treated freed status as a poor-law risk as well as a civil change, and pointed to vagrancy, disorder, and robbery among some of the liberated as the reason for the bond. Simons’s security requirement and the directors’ exception for slaves who had touched Dutch soil together fixed the Cape rule for the years that followed: manumission remained possible, but only under security that protected the diaconate funds, except where presence in the republic itself was held to complete freedom. [3] [4]
Simons’s commissionership was brief and fleet-bound, yet the manumission clause outlasted the visit. Issued four days before the return fleet sailed with the recalled officials, it sat alongside the political clearing of 1708 as an administrative settlement of a different order: not the punishment of a governor’s clique, but the codification of how free status might be granted without shifting the cost of poverty onto the church poor funds. Later Cape practice would still wrestle with exceptions and enforcement; the statutes-of-India security rule dated from this April instruction. [3]
Drakenstein Consistory Nominations Required in Dutch — 1708
This was the last year in which nominations from the Drakenstein consistory were sent in the French language. Upon the receipt of the usual documents, written in French, the council of policy directed that in future the nominations of church officers and letters to the government must be in Dutch. The order closed a generation of French administrative paper in the Huguenot district and aligned Drakenstein’s formal correspondence with the language already dominant in Cape and Stellenbosch church business. [3]
The shift belonged to a longer campaign. In 1701 the directors had already forbidden the Drakenstein minister to preach in French and ordered schools to teach no more of that tongue than was needed to help the youth learn Dutch, “in order that in course of time the French language may die out.” Cape replies promised that Dutch in church and school would hasten disuse. Yet French services and French paper did not vanish at once: petitions still sought fortnightly preaching in the mother tongue; Paul Roux continued French parish work. The council’s insistence on Dutch nominations and official letters was therefore one more administrative turn of the same screw—paper first, pulpits and schools already under pressure. [3] [8]
Material want sharpened the language question. In 1708 the Cape wrote to the Seventeen at Amsterdam, in a letter of the 18th of April, for authority to build, if not a full church, at least a respectable place of worship and a decent house for the clergyman at Drakenstein. Services were still held “in a shed or barn of very homely appearance” (en werd thans de godsdienst daar in een hok of schuur van zeer sober aansien nog verrigt). Le Boucq, when first appointed to the congregation, had refused the post after finding no parsonage, sick-comforter, Dutch parish clerk, or proper graveyard; Hermanus Bosman, appointed sick-comforter from the Overryp on the 8th of June 1707 “in order to avoid new quarrels,” conducted Dutch services in farmers’ houses while Roux kept the French. The nomination-language order of 1708 thus fell on a congregation still without a proper church fabric and still split between tongues in its weekly worship. [8]
The Huguenot countryside around Stellenbosch and Drakenstein recorded its own civil facts in the same year. Pierre Rochefort of Grenoble, holder of the Vlottenburg grant, was a deacon of the Stellenbosch church in 1708. Esaias Costeux, an agriculturist in the Stellenbosch district, died in 1708, leaving a widow, Anna van Marseveen (van Marcevene), but no issue, his brother and sister being his heirs. Daniel Bouvat (also Boat or Couvat), a free agriculturist living at Drakenstein, was given permission in 1708 to return to Europe. Susanne de Vos, widow of Pierre Jacob and wife of Nicolas de Lanoy, died in 1708, leaving no issue by him. The Dutch-nomination order thus fell on a district that was still burying and licensing its original refugee generation even as its official paper was required to speak Dutch. [8]
Wheat Export and the Notice against Rye and Beans — 1708
In 1705 a series of good seasons had set in, and every year a considerable quantity of wheat was now sent to Batavia. From 1706 to 1711, both years included, the average export was rather over four thousand muids. The Company paid a little less than twelve shillings of English money a muid for it at the magazines. Rye, barley, beans, and peas were also grown in quantities sufficient to supply the wants of the shipping and of the Indian government. There was, however, a very limited market for these products in India. In 1708 the quantity of rye and beans grown was so greatly in excess of the demand that a notice was issued discouraging their cultivation and stating that the Company would not purchase any more of either. [3]
The notice did not reverse the wheat trade that the good seasons had opened; it narrowed the secondary crops the Company was willing to absorb. For free burghers who had expanded rye and bean plantings beyond ship and hospital need, 1708 brought a clear signal that the Batavia market would not underwrite unlimited diversification of grain. Wheat remained the staple the magazines would take at a published price; rye and beans fell back to local and shipping consumption without a guaranteed Company buyer. [3]
Those good seasons also framed the political settlement of the year. A colony that could average more than four thousand muids of wheat a year for Batavia was no longer the hungry post of the 1650s; the same freemen who had forced the recall of Van der Stel were feeding the Indian route. The rye-and-beans notice was an instrument of market discipline, not of scarcity: it told producers where the Company’s demand stopped, while wheat continued to move through the magazines at a little under twelve shillings a muid. [3]
Carthago and Mercurius Begin the Mauritius Evacuation — September 1708
The island of Mauritius, hitherto a dependency of the Cape Colony, was at this time abandoned by the East India Company. It 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 concluded that it was not worth the cost of maintaining a large garrison, and that with a small garrison it was not secure. [3]
Of late years the Company had sustained severe losses there. During the night of the 9th of February 1695 the residency and magazines were destroyed by a violent hurricane. In 1701 a pirate ship wrecked near the settlement put two hundred armed men ashore, together with twelve English and thirty Indian prisoners out of captured vessels. The master of the buccaneers was an old acquaintance of the Dutch Company, having been in the Amy when she was seized in 1698 in Saldanha Bay. The colonists thought it prudent to take refuge in the fort. Commander Roelof Diodati, to be rid of the unwelcome visitors, was obliged to sell them the Company’s packet at half price (£167 from money saved from the wreck). 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]
Instructions to withdraw the garrison had reached the Cape in February 1707. The colonists were to have the choice of removal to Java or the Cape. 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. In September 1708 two vessels, the Carthago and the Mercurius, were sent to commence transporting the people and their effects. The Carthago went on to Batavia; the Mercurius was scheduled to return freemen and their effects to Table Bay. Among those later named from that lift were Daniel Zaaiman, Gerrit Romond, and Hendrik de Vries with their families. The names of the others are not given in the narrative sources. [3]
What 1708 accomplished was the first organised lift of settlers under the Cape’s evacuation order: two ships outward in September, one bound through to Batavia, one scheduled to return freemen and their effects to Table Bay. The garrison under commander Abraham Momber still remained for a later ship. The September despatch of the Carthago and Mercurius converted the February 1707 withdrawal instruction from a paper order into the beginning of an actual removal. [3]
Le Boucq Finally Shipped to Batavia — 13 September 1708
The January resolution against Le Boucq was carried into effect on the 13th of September 1708, when the quarrelsome clergyman was at last sent back to Batavia with an outward-bound ship. Eight months had passed since the council judged that concord could not be expected while he remained; in that interval Van Assenburgh had been installed, d’Ailly had taken the Cape pulpit, and the recalled officials had sailed for Europe. The September deportation closed the open phase of the church crisis that had begun with the Proverbs sermon of August 1707. [3]
Timing placed the deportation in the same autumn month as the Mauritius evacuation ships. While the Carthago and Mercurius prepared to lift freemen and effects from a dependency the Company no longer valued, Table Valley finally removed the minister whose deposition of Poulle and Oberholster, suit against Kalden, and public declamations had kept the Cape church in turmoil after the political settlement. Batavia, which had already confirmed Kalden’s victory on appeal and which had originally been glad to send a quarrelsome Portuguese-speaking clergyman to the Cape rather than keep him in India, received him back under a Cape council order rather than a pastoral call. The earlier denial of access to his church under d’Ableing had not ended the disturbance; only the outward-bound ship of September did that. [3] [9]
With Le Boucq gone and d’Ailly in the Cape pulpit, Drakenstein remained the weaker church post: still short of a permanent clergyman after Bek’s removal to Stellenbosch, still dependent on Bosman and Roux in farmers’ houses and barns, and still under pressure to conduct its official correspondence in Dutch. The year’s church settlement was therefore uneven—peace restored at the Castle church by deportation and a new appointment; the Huguenot district left to continue its bilingual makeshift until later building and later ministers. [3] [8]
Bull-and-Dog Fight at the Castle — 11 November 1708
There was only one recorded instance in which Van Assenburgh’s usual social reserve gave way in a manner that startled the steady burghers of the Cape. When the afternoon service was concluded on Sunday the 11th of November 1708, the governor invited the principal townspeople to the castle and made an effort to entertain them with a fight between bulls and dogs. A later castle portrait also names him as the man who presented the first dog-and-bull fights on the Wapen Pleyn, and who promoted puppet shows and fireworks displays. The November Sunday stood apart from the formal New Year and birthday receptions and from the militia dinner; it was remembered as a singular departure from the habits of a governor who otherwise mixed little with the town outside those set occasions. [3] [9]
The same character sketch that preserves the bull-and-dog fight also explains why it mattered. Van Assenburgh never interfered with the pursuits of the farmers and gave the colonists the protection to which they were entitled, so that he stood fairly well in their regard; yet he had not mixed with them or interested himself in their personal affairs as Simon van der Stel in his earlier years had done, and there was not that affection for him that there had once been for the other. He was friendly at the castle receptions and easy of access, but he did not court society. Against that background a Sunday afternoon of bulls and dogs after church was not a trivial anecdote: it was the one moment contemporaries singled out when the winebibbing military officer broke his own pattern of reserve. [3]
He had been sent to guide rebellious burghers back into the fold of the Company after an autocrat who, in the castle portrait’s phrase, had tried to rob the free burghers of the prefix “free.” The November entertainment belonged to that milder style: bread already secured by the recall and the meat contract, and games offered at the castle after the Sunday service. The burghers who had cheered him from the balcony in February now watched bulls and dogs in November. The governor who seldom left the castle had, for once, put on a show. [3] [9]
}}