Pardon me, but Breaker Morant was guilty

Early in the New Year, while most of us were thinking about going to the beach or when it would be okay to consign those unwanted Christmas presents to a charity bin, Commander Jim Unkles of the Royal Australian Navy had something more important on his mind. He announced to the media that he was tired…

Kdp22yy3-1327449115-1327449160 — Pardoning Breaker Morant should not be a priority for the government. AAP Image/Australian War Memorial

He announced to the media that he was tired of waiting for the federal government to press Britain’s Ministry of Defence to pardon three Australian soldiers punished for murdering unarmed captives. The previous Attorney General, Robert McClelland, seemed to get behind the case, but who could tell with his successor, the more dour Nicola Roxon? She should set aside her campaign for plain cigarette packaging, Jim Unkles boldly insisted, and get behind it too. After all, two of the soldiers had been executed, and their descendants were crying for justice.

It all sounds a bit odd, doesn’t it? Our government setting aside an important reform to appeal to London for a pardon for two dead men who were executed so long ago we can talk about their descendants. But then you’ve heard of Harry Morant, or at least seen the beautiful, influential but hopelessly romantic film Bruce Beresford made about him in 1979, haven’t you?

In that case you’ve already had a brush with the legend of “Breaker” Morant — the one about the Byronic boozer and balladist, the bushman and Bushveldt Carbineer shot by the British army. Beresford and others hauled him from the grave and forcibly recruited him into their cultural war of independence against Australia’s former English masters. And it worked. “Next time I go to a cricket match”, one bloke vowed after watching the film, “I’m not going to throw empty beer cans at the Poms.”

But what was the real story of Breaker Morant? And what are his chances now, given a new attorney general, for a very belated pardon?

The Bushveldt Carbineers were garrison troops, not frontline soldiers, in the Boer War of 1899-1902. One of their duties was to escort white men and boys into town to hand in any weapons and sign oaths of loyalty to the new order. It was these men and boys whom some in regiment began to disarm and kill. At first they acted at the urging of a military intelligence officer called Taylor; only later did Morant take the lead. Taylor and Morant said there were orders justifying the murders but, as one soldier later said, only the “very green” believed them. If there were orders, why did another officer, Peter Handcock from Bathurst, kill a German missionary and one of his own men so word of what was happening wouldn’t get out?

But word got out anyway. Sickened by the bloodshed and worried they might take the rap, some soldiers eventually turned their officers in. Morant and the others were arrested, gaoled, hauled up before an inquiry, then court martialled. An English lieutenant was merely cashiered, and simply by denying everything Taylor escaped scot free. Morant and Handcock ended up in front of a firing squad — inside a gaol in a large town, not in the middle of nowhere as the film would have it. A third officer, George Witton from Gippsland, was gaoled.

Some Australians were uneasy that the British army had punished these men. Still, they’d belonged to a British regiment, not an Australian one, and Morant had never considered himself Australian anyway. As news came out about the murders a consensus grew — shaped by a noisy campaign by Witton’s family — that Morant and Handcock deserved their fate but Witton didn’t. He was soon out of gaol, and the affair was forgotten until that cultural war of independence.

Jim Unkles has been pointing to shortcomings in the court martial for several years now. He is hardly the first to do so. But the guilty verdicts were the consequence of real crimes that could not be denied. The arguments put by the accused — merely following orders, merely avenging enemy barbarities, merely doing what other soldiers were secretly doing — were as bogus as they were inconsistent. Just because Taylor and some others escaped punishment, how did that make Morant, Handcock and Witton any less guilty? Anyway, military justice was exemplary eleven decades ago, punishing some soldiers for the, well, let’s say edification of the rest of the army.

Still, Jim Unkles is pressing Nicola Roxon and Britain’s Ministry of Defence to focus on legal shortfalls alone. If the trial and preceding inquiry didn’t strictly follow the rule book, he argues, then Morant and the others must be pardoned, however belatedly. But with no known transcript of trial or inquiry, how can we be sure — to a legal standard — of exactly what took place and why? Anyway, what message does it send if a government ignores a war crime to promote official rehabilitation of the perpetrators?

And what signal would go out to our soldiers today? That taking out unarmed civilians isn’t so bad after all, if you can somehow pass the buck to the Brits, the Americans or whoever?

Will Nicola Roxon do as Jim Unkles asks? A politician from the left, who used to be a union organiser and associate to Justice Mary Gaudron might look somewhat askance at whitewashing war criminals. But don’t discount the lingering power of the Morant legend. Politicians are busy people, with too little time to read enough history to counter lingering lies about the past.

But they do glance at the polls, and Jim Unkles insists ordinary Australians are as impatient as he is to rehabilitate Morant. Not to mention the descendants, though there can’t be too many of them, given neither Morant nor Witton had children.

There’s another constituency to consider, even if it’s offstage at present. The real victims in the Morant affair were the thirty or more unarmed South African men and teenagers, black as well as white, killed by the Bushveldt Carbineers, whose descendants number in the hundreds.

Some are watching carefully to see how our attorney general reacts. If they can find a sympathetic television station or documentary maker, they might move to centre stage — with interesting consequences for everyone.

You are free to republish this article, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

You can’t edit our material unless you have the author’s express permission or you are adjusting for relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits, please contact us
You can run the first few lines of the article only, if you say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
You must link to us and include links from our story, as well as our page view counter.
You can put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You can republish individual articles, but you can’t automatically republish all of our articles unless approved by us.
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Institution” (for example “Bruce Mapstone, CSIRO”).
You have to credit The Conversation and link back to our home page as provided in the HTML.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

Comments (35)

Permalink

22

4 months ago

james unkles

military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

Some salutary advice for Craig Wilcox, don't always believe what you read in the press. Like others, I relaxed at the beach over Christmas and yes, I agree with plain cigarette packaging legislation. Now to the substance of Craig's views. Aside from factual errors and an absence of evidence for his opinions, Craig has been a long protagonist against pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton and why we wouldn't it be so given his extensive writings on the Boer war and his alliance with the Australian…

show full comment

Some salutary advice for Craig Wilcox, don't always believe what you read in the press. Like others, I relaxed at the beach over Christmas and yes, I agree with plain cigarette packaging legislation. Now to the substance of Craig's views. Aside from factual errors and an absence of evidence for his opinions, Craig has been a long protagonist against pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton and why we wouldn't it be so given his extensive writings on the Boer war and his alliance with the Australian War Memorial? A successful review of this case, including any support from the Australian government would I imagine be an embarrassment for many historians, (amateur and professional) who have staked their reputations on the guilt of Morant and the innocence of those British officers who held military command over Morant et al. What Craig describes as legal short falls demonstrates to military lawyers and those in the judiciary and parliament who support the case for pardons, that Craig and others have no real understanding of what the case for pardons entails. Although he attended the House of Representatives Petitions Committee hearing in March 2010, he failed to grasp the significance of the determination by the Committee that the case for pardons was strong and compelling.
The case is not focused on obedience to superior orders, but significant and errors in the administration of justice according to the laws of 1902. May well Craig counsel Attorney General , Nicola Roxon, but he fails to realise that the case for pardons was supported by former Attorney General, Robert McClelland. McClelland's senior legal advisers in the Department have studied the case, my submissions and evidence since early 2010 when I petitioned the British Crown. McClelland made history as being the first Government Minister who stated his Government's concerns about denial of due process. including arrest, detention, investigation, trial and sentencing of these three Australian veterans. Fortunately, it is the same advisers who are now preparing to brief Ms Roxon. A focus of the work of the Attorney General's office is the principle that the passing of time and the fact that Morant, Handcock and Witton are deceased does not diminish serious and fatal errors in the administration of justice. Injustices in times of war are inexcusable and it takes vigilance to right wrongs, address injustices to honour those unfairly treated and to demonstrate respect to the rule of law. The Australian government has taken a stand and should be commended for the decision to put the matter before an inquiry independent of government. Finally, Craig argues that pardons would create embarrassment and controversy to our soldiers of today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from no evidence in support of this absurd speculation, pardons in this case will reassure all Defence personnel that principles of justice according to law are enduring and are signature values of fair process even in war time. In 1902, the then government led by Prime Minister Edmund Barton protested at the imprisonment of George Witton. Witton was eventually released through the concerted efforts of another Prime Minister, Alfred Deakin, a petition by the South Africans, lobbying by Winston Churchill and other British MPs, esteemed counsel, Isaac Isaacs, KC, MP and a petition signed by 80, 000 Australians. All these years later, Ms Roxon and this government can be proud of taking action to finally correct a grave injustice.

In Craig's words, the only consequence for every one is the truth and celebrating the rule of law that was shamefully trampled all those years ago.
Permalink

21

4 months ago

Stephen J Playford

Retired (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

insightful unconstructive

Craig Wilcox prefers the historian’s self-righteous occupation of Morant territory, shared by the AWM and the RSL, not to be evicted by upstarts like lawyers and ordinary folk. He says so in a previous article “Pardon Me for Being an Historian.” In his exertions to shake these intruders off he forgets that an historian should not manipulate the evidence. His current opinion piece is full of inaccuracies, and I shall name just three for the record; he omits that Captain Hunt issued orders to take…

show full comment

Craig Wilcox prefers the historian’s self-righteous occupation of Morant territory, shared by the AWM and the RSL, not to be evicted by upstarts like lawyers and ordinary folk. He says so in a previous article “Pardon Me for Being an Historian.” In his exertions to shake these intruders off he forgets that an historian should not manipulate the evidence. His current opinion piece is full of inaccuracies, and I shall name just three for the record; he omits that Captain Hunt issued orders to take no prisoners, he selectively quotes from the F.T.Hall letter - which confirms that orders were given before Morant arrived and much more; and he gives the number of Boers shot as 30 or more without attribution or naming who was responsible.

However, an understanding of this case is lost by many between two polarised views - the unreasoned historical and the narrow legal arguments. I will briefly set out the facts as space permits.
1. A number of disarmed Boers were shot by BVC Troopers. The Troopers were not prosecuted because they were under orders from the Lieutenants. “Orders” appears to be a defence. FACT.
2. Four Lieutenants were prosecuted for issuing illegal orders to the Troopers. Their defence was that the orders came from the late Captain Hunt (British), who received them from HQ. Orders were corroborated by several witnesses, but denied by HQ. All four found guilty, with recommendations for mercy. Two were executed, one gaoled, one cashiered. Orders, though proved, were ignored as a legitimate defence. FACT.
3. Handcock, Witton and Picton were subordinate to Morant, their obedience to orders should have been taken into account. FACT.
4. Captain Taylor (British), named as the one responsible for issuing the orders by lawyer J St Clair. Recommended for prosecution for numerous murders. Taylor had friends in high places. By careful manipulation, Taylor is not charged with issuing illegal orders in all cases and is acquitted. FACT.
5. Captains Taylor and Hunt instigated the illegal orders (where they originated from is another matter), and although all those who followed the orders share the guilt, their punishment should be mitigated accordingly. As a related issue, I believe that Morant & Co misunderstood the limitations of the orders.
It is not a matter of finding Morant, Handcock, Witton and Picton any less guilty, it is a matter of placing that guilt where it rightly belongs. Recognising that their courts- martial were unfair is a step in that direction. Wilcox needs to stick with the facts.
The Heese murder is coincidental. Witnesses were not wanted, by the guilty or their masters. Witton’s 1929 letter to Thomas is ambiguous and probably not the full story - it does not affect the above.
1. Permalink
  
  10
  
  In reply to Stephen J Playford, 3 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Stephen,
  
  Moris Alexander wrote a very informative letter, quoted from page 157 in Davey, regarding Officers Orders as a Defence.
  
  The Courts Martial adressed this defence and found that: "The general rule is that a person is responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts."
  
  The selective application of justice is not the only alternative to consider.
  
  In the case of the 6 Boers, the initial statement written by R.M. Cochrane, "Special Justice of the Peace for Western Australia", wrote: "This is probably the one case in which there may be some trouble to get the witnesses toghether".
  
  Cochrane was optimistic since witnesses were also missing in the Van Buuren and Heese cases.
2. Permalink
  
  29
  
  In reply to Stephen J Playford, 4 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Your "facts" are made up mate!
  
  Prosecutions were not possible in all cases due to a lack of evidence.
  
  Like Jim you prefer your igorant view that came about by watching a fictional movie rather than take the time to find the facts.
  
  When visiting the scene of the crimes, Jim was so ignorant of the facts that he claimed that the murders of the Van Stadens was not part of the courts martial and therefor it does not exist!
  
  His ignorance of the case has been exposed since the murder of the Van Stadens were clearly part of the Courts Martial. Morant was found guilty of giving the order for 12 year old Chris Van Staden to be shot.
  
  Chris van staden and his family went to the British seeking medical asistance. They took no part in the war and hid in what is no Zimbabwe to escape the war. They were pacifists.
  
  Yet James Unkles has accused the 12 year old victim of being a terrorist of sorts, truly despicable!
Permalink

19

4 months ago

David Heasley

Contracts manager (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

What a pity that the author didn't focus on the real issues, and what a greater pity that he played the ball and not the man.
The important issues were that Breaker Morant and his co accused were not given a fair trial, and there were matters considered that (today) would be appallable.
Leaving aside the actions he may (or may not) have engaged in, the thrust of James Unkles work is in getting the trial and process reviewed.
I always tell students to answer the question and address the issues at hand, a person of the authors station should not need reminding.
Permalink

19

4 months ago

james unkles

military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

Donald, as with many commentators on this subject your views are just that, conjecture. Perhaps evidence may assist your comments. As far as the Hesse matter is concerned, Morant and Handock were acquitted. The people best positioned to assess the evidence against the accused were the trial officers. Damning the accused for an offence they were acquitted of has a paralell with Craig Wilcox's claim, 'The real victims in the Morant affair were the thirty or more unarmed South African men and teenagers…

show full comment

Donald, as with many commentators on this subject your views are just that, conjecture. Perhaps evidence may assist your comments. As far as the Hesse matter is concerned, Morant and Handock were acquitted. The people best positioned to assess the evidence against the accused were the trial officers. Damning the accused for an offence they were acquitted of has a paralell with Craig Wilcox's claim, 'The real victims in the Morant affair were the thirty or more unarmed South African men and teenagers, black as well as white, killed by the Bushveldt Carbineers.' This claim by Craig is also unsupported and even if true, how is such a claim laid at the feet of Morant, Handcock and Witton merely becasue they wer in the BVC and in the absence of any credible evidence?

I am astonished and concerned how published and learned authors of history embelish their propositions by making unsubstantiated assertions. For this reason alone, an independent judicial inquiry will sort fact from fiction and set a benchmark that will disappoint many historians, namely a credible process that determines the truth. The Australian government's concerns about this case as expresssed by Robert McClelland and now being considered by Ms Roxon will hopefully bring this case to a conclusion and deliver justice that was denied to these veterans in 1902
Permalink

19

4 months ago

Richard Williams

Retired (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Andries:
1. FACT Morant's went to the war as a member of an Australian unit.
2. FACT One of your fellow countrymen, Theunis Botha, shot Chris van Staden. Westerhof may have formerly been a member of the Red Cross in Natal but I've yet to see an explanation of what he and the other seven were doing 100 miles from home in a district under martial law that required a pass to travel legitimately.
3. Following the war the British were trying to build bridges by handing out compensation payouts. I'm sure attempts were made to associate Morant with every unexplained death in the country.
4. FACT Handcock was court-martialled and found not guilty. Alleged hearsay allegations by Witton 30 years later don't alter that fact.
5. FACT Morant hadn't even arrived at Fort Edward when van Buuren was shot. Captain Taylor ordered Handcock to shoot him because he was believed to be a traitor. For some reason nobody was charged with this shooting.
1. Permalink
  
  20
  
  In reply to Richard Williams, 4 months ago
  
  Richard Williams
  
  Retired (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  One would think that any primary source documents that give us any hint of what was contained in the missing Court of Inquiry transcripts would be highly valued by historians and freely published.
  
  Fortunately, the legal opinion of Colonel J. St. Clair, the Deputy Judge Advocate General on Kitchener’s staff, has survived and is preserved in WO 93/41 in the British archives. St. Clair reviewed all the transcripts of the Court of Inquiry and wrote his opinion on this basis. Arthur Davey, in “Breaker…
  
  show full comment
  
  One would think that any primary source documents that give us any hint of what was contained in the missing Court of Inquiry transcripts would be highly valued by historians and freely published.
  
  Fortunately, the legal opinion of Colonel J. St. Clair, the Deputy Judge Advocate General on Kitchener’s staff, has survived and is preserved in WO 93/41 in the British archives. St. Clair reviewed all the transcripts of the Court of Inquiry and wrote his opinion on this basis. Arthur Davey, in “Breaker Morant and the Bushveldt Carbineers” 1987 reproduced part of that opinion on page 111. However, he only published St. Clair’s opinions regarding the Bushveldt Carbineers officers and left out the more damning recommendations relating to Captain Taylor. When I read this and saw St. Clair’s concluding remark “I will report separately on Capt. Taylor’s case” I was amazed to find that Davey had not seen fit to publish the Taylor recommendations despite the fact that they were contained in the same British archive.
  
  There are several documents in Davey’s book and elsewhere that point to the fact that Taylor was in command at Fort Edward and even though it was St. Clair’s opinion that he should be charged with 5 separate cases of murder (including the “8 Boers” and “3 Boers” cases where he was identified as being “primarily responsible”) and one of manslaughter, he was only eventually charged with the murder of the “6 Boers”. He was able to escape conviction because the prosecution did not contest his claim that he was not in military command despite the fact that there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. He was also charged with shooting a native but that charge failed as well.
  
  It is my understanding that the St. Clair document regarding Taylor is a primary component of the “new evidence” referred to by Jim Unkles because, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been previously published. The fact that Taylor escaped punishment while subordinates paid with their lives leaves a stench about this case which will not go away.
  
  I was astonished to read on Craig Wilcox’s website “Wilcox is History” his claim that “The supposed new evidence … isn't new. It appeared in a memo published in a book in 1987.” As I’ve pointed out above, no it didn’t, Craig – we only got the opinion about the BVC officers from Davey.
  
  I’m disappointed that we’ve never seen anything about the St. Clair opinion in anything that Craig Wilcox has published over the years either, although he has expressed some thoughts about the man at times:
  
  “Distant rule often meant absent rule, as was the case at an outpost called Fort Edward, where the senior soldier was not a Carbineer but an Irish-born local intelligence officer, Alfred Taylor, who claimed authority to direct local military operations himself.”
  Ned Kelly in Khaki – Craig Wilcox
  The Weekend Australian Magazine February 23-24 2002
  
  And in Australia’s Boer War – Craig Wilcox:
  Page 283
  “…he soon edged James Robertson out of effective command and claimed authority to exercise a free hand in the Spelonken, authority from Kitchener himself, so he said.”
  Page 284
  “He was almost certainly responsible for encouraging the local Carbineers detachment to kill Boers who fell into their hands. Was he following secret orders from someone in headquarters, perhaps Kitchener, to wage war to the death in the Spelonken?”
  
  I am at a loss to understand why the various historians have seen fit not to share St. Clair’s damning indictment of Taylor with their readers. We read the occasional “tut tut” that he escaped punishment but you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude that there was something very sinister about the way he was treated. What did he know and who was he protecting?
  1. Permalink
    
    22
    
    In reply to Richard Williams, 4 months ago
    
    Andries Hendrik Pretorius
    
    (logged in via Facebook)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Richard,
    
    If you ask Jim about the Heese case, he will tell you that Handcock was found not guilty and therefor the case ends there...
    
    You have trouble accepting the not guilty verdict returned for Taylor. Frankly so do I. A legal appeal should open up all aspects of the case, not just the bits one person dislikes... This is where Jim and I differ, he wants a very limited review (or preferably a pardon) and I will only support a complete review which could lead to justice for any party be it…
    
    show full comment
    
    Richard,
    
    If you ask Jim about the Heese case, he will tell you that Handcock was found not guilty and therefor the case ends there...
    
    You have trouble accepting the not guilty verdict returned for Taylor. Frankly so do I. A legal appeal should open up all aspects of the case, not just the bits one person dislikes... This is where Jim and I differ, he wants a very limited review (or preferably a pardon) and I will only support a complete review which could lead to justice for any party be it Morant or one of the victims of cowardly murders.
    
    My view is that people like Botha and especially Taylor, should have suffered the same fate as Morant and Handcock.
    
    That does not make Morant, Handcock, Witton and Picton any less guilty of their crimes. I believe they received fair trials, Morant did not help himself by delaying a search for legal representation. Writing to Capt Purland asking him to represent him was dumb.
    
    Unfortunately the only documents that would put anything beyond reasonable doubt, has been destroyed.
    
    I think you are unfair to both Davey and Wilcox.
    
    Davey did mention the culpability of Taylor, and he did so in great detail. He also gave the final verdict of the Courts Martial agreed to by St Clair... Strange that you, like Jim, omit the part that St Clair eventually held the opinion that the men were guilty of crimes, for which their was no justifation and should take their punishment.
    
    Jim's "new evidence" is anything but new, and Taylors culpability and ulpalatable not guilty finding has also been widely documented.
    
    Your claim that the 8 Boers were part of a Commando has been rejected by even the British.
    
    Boer Commando's would not have 88 cattle with them...
    
    The lack of prosecution of BVC members for looting is another issue which a complete review should address.
Permalink

18

3 months ago

Stephen J Playford

Retired (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

insightful unconstructive

Andries,

Why is it that your unsupported version of events beats all other versions, and that versions based on numerous documented and authorative sources are “made up”, the work of “ignorant people” who base their views on a movie? Does this tell you something?

With all the people that you could despise from that unjust war 110 years ago; Queen Victoria, Buller, Roberts, Kitchener right down to Taylor and Hunt, you choose the pawns, Morant, Handcock and Witton, and of course, Australians…

show full comment

Andries,

Why is it that your unsupported version of events beats all other versions, and that versions based on numerous documented and authorative sources are “made up”, the work of “ignorant people” who base their views on a movie? Does this tell you something?

With all the people that you could despise from that unjust war 110 years ago; Queen Victoria, Buller, Roberts, Kitchener right down to Taylor and Hunt, you choose the pawns, Morant, Handcock and Witton, and of course, Australians, to hate. Give us a break. The moral collapse of that war was not set by minions like Morant.

There are many discussions on the atrocities of that war (for example http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p14_Weber.html#47781 ) that include shooting prisoners and do not even mention Morant. There seems to be a bit of “shoot the messenger” in your group.

I do not defend Morant, I suspect he was unfit to be in command of the BVC.

You claim Morant was an Englishman, not an Australian. Your purpose seems to be that the Australian Government has no jurisdiction over Morant. That is incorrect. There was no Australian citizenship until 1949, all citizens were British. Morant spent 15 years here working as a drover/horsebreaker, married here, wrote hundreds of poems about Australia, and enlisted in South Australia. His nick-name “Breaker” is Australian. All this made the newly formed Federal Government (1901) responsible for him. The current government still is.

You claim many of the victims are innocent civilians. Every Boer male between the age of 16 and 60 underwent military training. Kruger had his first battle at the age of 14. The Boers captured were armed. Photographs of commandos often show very young men. These groups were roaming the bush, for no apparent reason. You tell me where you get the information that they were innocent civilians, some seeking medical attention, some pacifists, and that van Staden was 12? That is only fair.

You claim Morant was not prosecuted for many murders he was known to have been involved in. Name these “many” murders, and the source.

You say that the generosity of compensation claims by the despised British do not provide fertile ground for unfounded claims, that this is a “conspiracy theory”. This raises an interesting aside. Hercules Viljoen claimed that his two houses and all his possessions were destroyed by the British in June 1901, claiming £1231. Two of his sons were killed there on 6th/7th August - there is no mention of any damage to the house. Viljoen family tradition has no mention of it. Is this just historical facts playing tricks on us, have I “made it up”, or would you just say it’s another conspiracy theory?

Richard has commented on your incorrect statements on van Buuren, Churton and Cochrane. Your facts are at fault. Can we take you seriously? Lets see what you come back with.
1. Permalink
  
  7
  
  In reply to Stephen J Playford, 3 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Hi Stephen,
  
  Thank you for your questions. I'll try to deal with the many issues you raise concisely a few at a time.
  
  Firstly, I disagree that my version is unsupported. I do not expect you to accept my version on face value. In fact I would appreciate it if you simply take some time consider my point of view, and perhaps those views of others, like Craig Wilcox, Fransjohan Pretorius, Charles Leach, etc. Stephen, I will happily reciprocate.
  
  I have read widely on the subject, visited the…
  
  show full comment
  
  Hi Stephen,
  
  Thank you for your questions. I'll try to deal with the many issues you raise concisely a few at a time.
  
  Firstly, I disagree that my version is unsupported. I do not expect you to accept my version on face value. In fact I would appreciate it if you simply take some time consider my point of view, and perhaps those views of others, like Craig Wilcox, Fransjohan Pretorius, Charles Leach, etc. Stephen, I will happily reciprocate.
  
  I have read widely on the subject, visited the relevant sites and I am amazed at the richness and complexity of the history. Regardless of ones point of view, the story is fascinating and certainly worth investigating with an open mind.
  
  Given that these incidents happened 110 years ago, I doubt that there is anyone person who could rightly claim to know everything or even enough on the subject.
  
  To support my view that Morant was an Englishman an NOT an Australian I request that you consider the following:
  1. The statement as to service given by Lieutenant H.H. Morant according to George Witton (page 106) was as follows [EMPHASIS OVIDED]: “I have held a commission since 1st April, 1901, in the Bushveldt Carbineers. Prior to this I was a sergeant in that corps, and was promoted to a commission out of that corps into the Transvaal Constabulary, but WENT HOME TO ENGLAND for six months. I came out again and joined the B.V.C.; since then I have been serving on detachment the whole time. I hand in a letter from the O.C. South Australians. In March, 1900, I was carrying dispatches for the Flying Column to Prieska, under Colonel Lowe, 7th D.G. I was in the general advance to Bloemfontein, and took part in the engagements of Karee Siding and Kroonstadt and other engagements with Lord Robberts until entry into Pretoria. I was at Diamond Hill, and then was attached to General French’s staff, Cavalry Brigade, as war correspondent with Bennet Burleigh, for the London “Daily Telegraph,” and accompanied that column through Belfast and Middleburg to the occupation of Barberton, when I WENT HOME TO ENGLAND.”
  2. Morant, unhappy with being told to face the wall at the old Pretoria Goal, said: “Look here, warder, recollect although I am a prisoner I am still a British officer, and will be treated as such” (Carnegie and Shields, page 140).
  3. The prison record which contains information that Morant provided, such as age, religion, etc. shows that when Morant entered the prison on 22 February 1902, he referred to himself as an Englishman while Handcock referred to himself as an Australian.
  4. In a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald dated 16 June 1923 Major Thomas reacted strongly to a suggestion that Morant was Australian and was adamant that “Morant was not an Australian, he was an Englishman, who came to this country for “colonial experience””.
  5. The website www.bushveldtcarbineers.com.au indicates that Handcock was the first Australian to be executed for war crimes.
  
  On 24 February 2011, I received a letter from the Australian Attorney-General’s Department confirming that “The Australian Government has no legal jurisdiction to pardon a person who was convicted in another country”.
  
  My reason for pointing out the fact that Morant was an Englishman and not an Australian is firstly to point out a simple fact. Secondly it is worth keeping in mind that some, wrongly, believe that the Australians were singled out for punishment.
  
  It would be an understatement to say that I am not fond of any of those that you indicate I “could despise from that unjust war 110 years ago”. Little is said about the fate of the mothers and children transported by Morant, Handcock and other members of the BVC to Pietersburg Concentration Camp. I visited this site also and suggest you and others do to.
  
  As the Judge Advocate summed up in the Visser case: “The general rule is that a person is responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts”.
  If Taylor (who escaped punishment because he was allowed to resign!), Kitchener, and even the King and Queen were somehow involved then I believe they should all have been made responsible.
  
  The fact that some escaped punishment does not mean that others should also escape responsibility.
  
  Stephen, have I in your view provided enough support for my claim that Morant was an Englishman and not an Australian?
Permalink

18

4 months ago

james unkles

military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

David Heasley, an elegant and appropriate comment. The focus of my work has been a review devoid of 'playing the man', distortion and comment based on bias instead of facts drawn from evidence and a serach for the truth. The case for review is not based on the law of 2012, nor is it entrenched in Nuremberg war crimes trials. It is focused on several issues concerning the military law and procedures that applied to the investigation and trials of these three men in 1902. The case for review is…

show full comment

David Heasley, an elegant and appropriate comment. The focus of my work has been a review devoid of 'playing the man', distortion and comment based on bias instead of facts drawn from evidence and a serach for the truth. The case for review is not based on the law of 2012, nor is it entrenched in Nuremberg war crimes trials. It is focused on several issues concerning the military law and procedures that applied to the investigation and trials of these three men in 1902. The case for review is not about 'white washing war criminals' as asserted by Wilcox. I also think he demeans his views and reputation as a historian by adopting 'below the belt' tactics such as questioning my motives in supporting the descendants of these men even though Witton and Morant did not have children. The fact remains there are a large number of descendants direct and removed, but still realted who are patiently waiting for justice in this case or at least an impartial judicial inquiry, independent of government to determine the facts and merits of the case for pardons. Some descendants are active in their support, while others remain quiet in the hope that calls for review will prevail after decades of doubt and concern about the manner in which these men were treated. The views of the descendants played a crucial role in the consideration by former Attorney General, Robert McClelland, MP and his decison to forward a submission to the British government about his concerns of denial of due legal process. I am confident that the current Attorney General, Ms Nicola Roxon, MP will also value the submissions by descendants in a similar manner. Craig Wilcox's focus on me fails to deal with the persistent calls from notable judicial, community, and political identties who over many years have expressed doubts about the trials and the denial of the lawfulness of the convictions and sentences. I can assure you that the doubts expressed are not of recent expression. Concerns were expressed by counsel for the accused, Major Thomas from the moment of the sentences being acrreid out and have continued since. Calls for pardons will not cease until the matter is assessed in a professional and independent manner and not through dubious outlets such as self serving historians with vested interests and organisations that seek to maintain the staus quo in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary.
1. Permalink
  
  53
  
  In reply to james unkles, 4 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  James,
  
  You are the self serving one, not Craig and others who simply state the truth, which you clearly despise.
  
  I'll take you up on your claim to have found descendants of Morant.
  
  If you provide a letter from the Brittish Society of Genealogists, Morant was after al an Englishman, that certifies that you have accurately identified one of Morant's descendants, who has instructed you in the matter, then I will donate $1000 to the charity of your choice.
  
  If you fail to do so then I expect you to do same.
  
  Put your money where your mouth is Jim.
Permalink

14

3 months ago

Nick Bleszynski

Film Producer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

Followed this with interest. Craig Wilcox has never been convincing on this subject. For over a decade in countless articles, interviews and submissions he has skirted round any inconvenient facts which get in the way of his position that Morant et al were guilty and got what they deserved.

The story will be told in full during the coming year, but one of his most consistent obfuscations concerns the historical timeline and culpability of senior British officers, namely Taylor and Col. Hall…

show full comment

Followed this with interest. Craig Wilcox has never been convincing on this subject. For over a decade in countless articles, interviews and submissions he has skirted round any inconvenient facts which get in the way of his position that Morant et al were guilty and got what they deserved.

The story will be told in full during the coming year, but one of his most consistent obfuscations concerns the historical timeline and culpability of senior British officers, namely Taylor and Col. Hall, things that Andries also seems to struggle with.

Wilcox enjoys reminding anyone who will listen to him that Morant was “dobbed in” by fellow BVC NCO’s and privates. True – but so were many others – a fact he does not wish to draw attention to and is always careful to convey the impression that they and they alone killed Boer prisoners. The fact of the matter is that the killing had begun well before Morant arrived at Fort Edward and before even Capt. Hunt turned up.

The other thing he’s not keen on is any mention of orders which, until his recent article in “Wartime,” he dealt with by saying they never existed – although they are mentioned quite clearly in the Cochrane deposition in which they “dob” in Morant as having come from Taylor and sanctioned by Robertson and by extension Hall. He has a handy answer for this too. He doesn’t believe these were real orders, but “bogus” ones which only Morant and Taylor used for there own ends. What about Lt. Hannam? He ordered the shooting up of a Boer wagon that resulted in the death of two little boys and got off scot-free.

Seven men were shot under orders given directly by Robertson and Taylor – a fact conveyed to Col Hall by two absconded BVC troopers. For the record Handcock was not involved in the shooting of the six Boers and neither Morant nor Witton were even at the fort. This led to Robertson being recalled, stripped of his command, but not charged. If the British were as “pukka” as Wilcox claims – why was he allowed to resign without charge? If Morant could be later shot for giving those selfsame orders why didn’t Hall order an investigation and prefer charges? At the risk of being cynical – could it be that once Robertson was out of the Army he couldn’t be court martialled or called to give evidence in a court martial?

Hunt, with no previous connection to the BVC, then arrived at Ft. Edward with confirmation of the orders to take no prisoners, which he told Morant were given to him by Lt Col Hamilton, Kitchener’s Military Secretary. Morant arrives shortly after – so had no part in the first seven killings – a point which Kitchener and Craig neglect to mention when they seek attribute all the killings to him. Kitchener had it at “around 20” and Craig has had it as high as 30 – even though even he Boers don’t seem to know who they might have been.

Morant then arrives at Ft. Edward and following the death of Captain Hunt – orders the shooting of Visser followed by parties of 8 and 3 Boers, facts which were communicated to Hall who still doesn’t act – even after the shooting of Heese.

Presented in context it gives a very different view of the crimes of Morant. Handcock and Witton and the justice they were served up. Whichever way you look at it Morant, Handcock and Witton were picked out of a gallery of the guilty and shot for the crimes of many, including higher-ranking officers. Craig almost admits this when he says that many executions in the British Army were exemplary, but not quite. Had Morant et al been shot alongside Hall, Taylor, Robertson and Picton then we wouldn’t be here. Fact was that they weren’t and no one has ever been able to explain what made them any more guilty that say Picton, Hannam or Oldham – or Hall and Taylor? How could either of the latter have defended their conduct without naming the source of the orders?

When added to the many serious legal flaws that Jim has uncovered in the case – what they got wasn’t justice in any language and the current judicial review is long overdue. If it was all above board – as Craig claims – what’s he afraid of? The British did have the most sophisticated and comprehensive military legal system in the world in 1902 in the form of the Manual of Military Law. Although Craig likes to play the Nuremberg card – superior orders were a valid defence in 1902, which is why the source of the orders was so important.

Speaking of orders – despite them being at the heart of this matter – no one thought it sufficiently important to establish where these orders originated. I cannot imagine what could be more damaging to the reputation of an Army of a civilised nation who claimed to be fighting for democracy than the issuing of illegal orders to shoot prisoners, yet Taylor, who was named as the original source of the orders by St Clair as early as November 1901 was like Robertson allowed to resign from the Army only to be re-hired and decorated after the trial. Hall, who quite clearly knew about the orders and allowed the culture of murder to take root, was shipped off to India without ever even giving a statement. All up, there are a number of disturbing discrepancies and no doubt that while Morant et al were guilty were quite clearly not alone nor the original source of the orders. I think I’m right to be cynical and support any legal review

Finally, on a personal note I noted that Andries took a swing at Jim over Van Stadens. The full story is that Charles presented the graves as belonging to Boers who Morant shot and was never tried for. I must say it threw me too to start with, but I did pull Charles up and he was gallant enough to admit that was mistaken. It was a high-pressure day of filming and one of those things. I don’t think it reflected badly on anyone and Charles really knows his stuff.
1. Permalink
  
  11
  
  In reply to Nick Bleszynski, 3 months ago
  
  Stephen J Playford
  
  Retired (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Richard Williams and Nick Bleszynski have disputed the significance placed by Craig Wilcox’s and Andries Pretorius’ on the Cochrane Memorandum as the “telling event” in the prosecution of Morant and Co. I agree, and some expansion on that event and reasons to doubt its veracity might be helpful. If we can believe Bertodano, his warnings about Taylor began in May 1901, and on hearing of the death of Heese on 29th August announced to his colleagues “The Ball has commenced”. On 11th Sept. Enraght-Mooney…
  
  show full comment
  
  Richard Williams and Nick Bleszynski have disputed the significance placed by Craig Wilcox’s and Andries Pretorius’ on the Cochrane Memorandum as the “telling event” in the prosecution of Morant and Co. I agree, and some expansion on that event and reasons to doubt its veracity might be helpful. If we can believe Bertodano, his warnings about Taylor began in May 1901, and on hearing of the death of Heese on 29th August announced to his colleagues “The Ball has commenced”. On 11th Sept. Enraght-Mooney writes that the reports on Taylor “amount to murder”. After much agitation Taylor was recalled about 27 September. Meanwhile, Col. Hall sends Major Lenehan to Fort Edward to investigate irregularities there. Lenehan arrived on 7th Sept. and remained there until 21st Oct, and is then arrested. His report/s, confirmed in court as having been sent in by Lieut. Edwards, apparently vanished. It is this event that is the more telling. Col Hall, who received the report, had previously not taken any action against Taylor and Robertson for shooting six Boer prisoners, had sent Hunt to Fort Edward without instructions to NOT shoot surrendered Boers, then apparently sent Lenehan to investigate without instructions to relieve any officers acting illegally, Lenehan instead sending Morant off to capture Kelly “alive”, then Lenehan’s report disappears, then Col. Hall, a primary witness, is shipped off to India.
  
  One can only speculate that Hall had no problems with the “take no prisoners” order. One might assume his brief to Lenehan might have been to brush it under the carpet as best as he can. Those who shipped Hall to India might have had the same views.
  
  The Cochrane memorandum is dated 7th October, well after investigations by Enraght-Mooney and Lenehan had started. There is something very suspicious about its purpose. The initial Memo signed by 15 members of the BVC makes no mention of Taylor and only minor mention of Hunt, but implicates Lenehan. There is only slight mention of “Orders” sanctioned by HQ despite its obvious significance. The following Memo signed only by Cochrane is particularly aimed at Lenehan. It is damning of Taylor and his cattle thieving more than his murders. Their focus on Lenehan was quite undeserved compared to Taylor and Hunt, and in writing to Hall there must have been concern that Hall and Lenehan might be in agreement on damage control. But why the focus on Lenehan? He had nothing to do with the shootings. Note that the 15 did not sign the more damning Memo. I suggest that Lenehan was singled out by someone as the senior officer to face a farcical trial, and the second Memo was carefully constructed to take the focus off Taylor who they knew they couldn’t touch. Any way you look at it, the prosecution of Lenehan was a put up job - so why did the supposedly crack military legal system waste their time with it?
  
  More information on the protection of Taylor and the interpretation of the “orders” can be had by visiting http://www.bushveldtcarbineers.com.au/?page_id=7/breaker-morant/no-surrender-steve-playford/
2. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Nick Bleszynski, 3 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  The last paragraph in the author’s note in Nick Bleszynski’s book has escaped most people who have read the book. Mr Unkles is one of them, McClelland MAY be another, but I believe as a politician he was just opportunistic.
  
  I will not apologise for being a purist.
  
  I will apologise when I get the facts wrong, and in a case this old we are all bound to get it wrong from time to time. It seems that I got it wrong when I stated that Muir Churton was an Australian. It seems he was indeed from NZ…
  
  show full comment
  
  The last paragraph in the author’s note in Nick Bleszynski’s book has escaped most people who have read the book. Mr Unkles is one of them, McClelland MAY be another, but I believe as a politician he was just opportunistic.
  
  I will not apologise for being a purist.
  
  I will apologise when I get the facts wrong, and in a case this old we are all bound to get it wrong from time to time. It seems that I got it wrong when I stated that Muir Churton was an Australian. It seems he was indeed from NZ, my apologies for that. Thank you for pointing out my error Richard.
  
  The fact remains that Muir Churton and many other members of the BVC including Australians conducted themselves in a way that should be respected, while Taylor, Roberston, Hannam, Morant, Handcock, Witton and Picton acted in a dubious criminal matter mostly in self-interest.
  
  The “superior orders” defence will not last five minutes in Court, not now not in 1902, nor in 1813 see the “Maxwell Case”.
  
  On his blog Mr Unkles indicated that the alleged and unproved order to kill Boer prisoners of war were clearly ILLEGAL, while the same Mr Unkles claimed that the orders were LEGAL (see the forum on www.ww2incolor.com). He has yet to clarify whether he agrees with himself; he has yet to retract either statement.
  
  I checked with Charles and he refutes your version of the events at the Van Staden’s grave. You are correct he does know his stuff.
Permalink

3

3 months ago

Stephen J Playford

Retired (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)

insightful unconstructive

Andries,

Thank you for a more moderate reply. I agree that the Morant episode is a complex and twisted tale like no other. I believe I and my Australian colleagues are tolerant of different viewpoints, provided they are substantiated. To begin to understand, people of today must first accept that in 1901 the population had different views on racial superiority and death, and these were hardened by the callousness of war. Page 276 of Wilcox sums this up nicely, but fails to consider why rational…

show full comment

Andries,

Thank you for a more moderate reply. I agree that the Morant episode is a complex and twisted tale like no other. I believe I and my Australian colleagues are tolerant of different viewpoints, provided they are substantiated. To begin to understand, people of today must first accept that in 1901 the population had different views on racial superiority and death, and these were hardened by the callousness of war. Page 276 of Wilcox sums this up nicely, but fails to consider why rational people become irrational.

Your point about Morant being an Englishman is correct. He was also an Australian by reason of his time here. I could say this is all academic, but that is not helpful. Morant, being born in England, considered himself British. Handcock, being born in Australia, considered himself Australian. My previous comment set out the legal case. The following comments are intended to show that there is no point in taking a strong line on this.

1. Morant referred to England as “home”. Refer to page 297 of Wilcox, Australians “always speak of England as “home” “, the seat of the British Empire.

2. Morant said he was a “British Officer”. As I have said, all Australians were British citizens. He was an officer in a British Irregular Unit. Some say a South African Unit, but as the Republics were under Martial Law and South Africans were British citizens, it makes no difference.

3. Morant entered “English” on the prison record. It’s a bit like my wife, she has been in Australia for most of her life, but would still put herself down as British. She could sit the naturalisation test, if she wished to. Officially she is a “Permanent Resident” of Australia, dual citizenship. That, more or less, was Morant’s status, though it didn’t exist at the time.

4. Major Thomas objected to the newspapers calling Morant an Australian. When the newspapers accused Australians with crimes, Thomas wanted it understood that Morant was not a native born Australian. A little over-patriotic of Thomas.

5. Handcock was the first Australian to be executed for war crimes. The first “native born Australian”, to be precise.

6. The Australian Government has no legal jurisdiction to pardon a person who was convicted in another country. That applies to Australians as well.

7. Some, wrongly, believe that the Australians were singled out for punishment. The belief is that colonials were expendable, it would cause less fuss at “home”. After all, the British regarded most Australians are the descendents of convicts, or “remittance men” sent out to the colonies for some disgrace at “home”. I don’t think this belief has much following today. More to the point is that Taylor, whose guilt was indisputable, was deliberately let off, and Col. Hall was removed to save embarrassment. The summings-up should have condemned Hunt and Taylor, and might have had a bit to say about Hall. But why didn’t Morant name Taylor as the source of the orders? Because they thought Hunt and Hamilton would be enough, and Taylor was a mate. They all believed that the only case that mattered was the Heese case, and that was flimsy. Nobody cared about a few Boers, they said.

The horrors of the Pietersburg Refugee Camp were the fault of Kitchener’s administration, nothing to do with Morant, Handcock and other members of the BVC.

You say that the fact that some escaped punishment does not mean that others should also escape responsibility. With this I differ. When a ship goes down, do you blame the captain or the stoker? Morant was guilty, he admitted responsibility under extenuating circumstances, but the person inciting him was Taylor.

In regard to my other questions, The Times article of 17/4/1902 had the youngest van Staden as 17 years of age, the Cochrane letter has 14 years. In regard to roaming Boer combatants having cattle: page 221 of Davey, 18 Boers had 300 cattle; see also pages 95 and 105. I am only using Davey, as you trust Davey.
1. Permalink
  
  8
  
  In reply to Stephen J Playford, 3 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Stephen,
  
  My pleasure, having someone with an open mind debate an issue also assists in keeping a debate “moderate” even in the event that we disagree on some matters. I have great respect for Australians and my view is that Australians should look deeper into this case; they will be surprised to find a few truly brave Australian soldiers who have not yet been recognised and celebrated.
  
  I believe that most people are ignorant on the facts of the case, despite the large number of people who enter…
  
  show full comment
  
  Stephen,
  
  My pleasure, having someone with an open mind debate an issue also assists in keeping a debate “moderate” even in the event that we disagree on some matters. I have great respect for Australians and my view is that Australians should look deeper into this case; they will be surprised to find a few truly brave Australian soldiers who have not yet been recognised and celebrated.
  
  I believe that most people are ignorant on the facts of the case, despite the large number of people who enter public debate; few people know anything about the deeds that led to the crime. James Unkles is not tolerant of different views even if substantiated. As you can see on an earlier post I have offered $1000 to him to substantiate one of his famous claims. He has avoided it, I wonder why he would keep such an interesting story from us… how a man first named Murrant, who had no children, later had descendants with a surname similar to his adopted surname… It should be fascinating, if true of course… I am being a “purist” again as both Renar and Bleszynski would say…
  
  It seems that we have a number of different views of whether Morant was an Englishman or an Australian. They can probably be categorised as follows:
  1. Morant was an Englishman NOT an Australian (Major Thomas’ view)
  2. Morant was an Englishman (Morant’s view)
  3. Morant was both an Englishman and an Australian (Your view)
  4. Morant was an Australian (Cutlack’s view).
  5. Morant was an Australian and NOT and Englishman (Unkles view, hence the curious unsupported accusations against the British Government).
  
  I believe only 1 and 2 are likely however, I am willing to accept any view from 1 to 3, but do not believe like many claim that the British Military took action against two Englishman and two Australians because they were exclusively Australian and hence became “Colonial” scapegoats.
  
  You make an excellent point about irrational deeds by rational men during war, as an ex infantryman I have some experience of this, in fact I remember my own attention being drawn my own commanders panic when the bullets flew around me for the first time. For a few seconds, I was more curious/ transfixed by his panic than in taking cover!
  
  A question to consider is whether you view Morant and Handcock specifically as especially rational men… Banjo Patterson even questioned (much later) how Morant could ever have been given power related to matters of life and death.
  
  If the British officers only followed did their duty begrudgingly, then I would have understood. But what they did to Floris Visser was barbaric. If an investigation is ever reopened it should add to its terms of reference, “what happened to the body of Floris Visser?”
  
  Those in favour of making an Australian hero out of the Englishman, Morant, claim that “Justice knows no time frame”. I have met the granddaughter of Rev Heese (not Hesse as mentioned by James), could I ask that he explain to her why there need be no open investigation and justice for that murder?
  
  I disagree with your view on the captain and stoker, and it is not just Hitler that comes to mind…
  
  In 1439, Charles VII of France promulgated the order: “that each captain or lieutenant be held responsible for the abuses, ills and offences committed by members of his company, and as soon as he receives any complaint complaining any such misdeed or abuse, he bring the offender to justice so that the said offender be punished in a manner commensurate with his office, according to these Ordinances. If he fails to do so or covers up the misdeed or delays in taking action, or if, because of his negligence or otherwise, the offender escapes investigation or punishment, the captain shall be responsible for the offence as if he had committed it himself and shall be punished in the same way as the offender would have been.”
  
  According to Major Lenehan (Carnegie and Shields, pages 124 to 125) Morant and Handcock were informed by the Court that if they implicated a senior officer who gave them orders nothing would happen to them. This indicates that “orders” did not come from anyone but Morant... although you and I both suspect Taylor. Proving it is another matter though.
  
  In 1474, Peter von Hagenbach was found guilty by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire. This was the first known “international” recognition of commanders’ obligations to act lawfully. Peter von Hagenbachs’ defence was that he was “just following orders” given by the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold. Von Hagenbach was convicted for crimes "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent”. His defence of “superior orders” was rejected and he was convicted of war crimes and beheaded.
  
  In the early 17th century, the Swedish King, Gustavus Adolphus (1594-1632) ordered that: “No Colonel or Captain shall command his soldiers to do any unlawful thing: which who so does, shall be punished according to the discretion of the Judges.”
  
  Another famous precedent on the subject of superior’s orders is the “Maxwell Case” in 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars (1793–1815). French prisoners were killed in a Scottish jail by a guard under the direct orders of Ensign Maxwell. Maxwell claimed in the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland that he was acting under superior orders, it was rejected by the court. The court declared that “every officer has a discretion to disobey an order against the known laws of the land.”
  
  The above means that murder would need to be an accepted LAW, this was not the case in 1902 or at centuries before then.
  
  I believe you are right that Taylor was ultimately protected by Morant and Handcock since he was a mate. I also believe that Taylor was the chief culprit who’s business was looting. The problem the Courts Martial must have faced was, firstly they knew that Morant and Handcock were involved sinced they confessed to most of the murders. Since they did not point the finger at Taylor, who in turn MAY have pointed his finger elsewhere, from a legal point of view that limited the Courts Martial to finding only the 4 officers guilty.
  
  You are correct I do believe Davey’s book to be authoritative on the subject. I would read any others you recommend also.
  
  The concepts Burghers (citizens of the republics) and Commando’s (soldiers) should not be confused with each other. The Spelonken area was a relatively quiet area, with few Commandos (like Beyers), active in the area. Commandos would usually travel light, with biltong (air dried meat) and beskuit (a dried bread of sorts) and only a horse. The fact that 88 cattle were found in possession of the men and that they did not shoot a shot in anger clearly shows that these were ordinary citizens and not soldiers. I believe it is the cattle that attracted the BVC interest in the first place. Visser was the only Commando killed by Morant et al. Edward Powell writes how sickened he was to see the six Boers who were all shot in the same place in the forehead (Page 96 of Davey). That was simply murder of innocent civilians who were instructed by proclamation to surrender and make an oath of allegiance to the King. Handcock then stole one of their horses…
  
  Stephen I am also a permanent resident in Australia and live in Adelaide and would happily share my photos, maps and books with anyone interested in the facts of the case, regardless of their point of view.
  
  I suggest you read “Commando” by Deneys Reitz for more information on Commando life at the time. The book busts the myth of young Commando’s, Deneys was 17 and had to seek permission from President Kruger himself.
  
  Perhaps the best way to look at the case would be to make another movie in the format of the cartoon “hoodwinked” where multiple possible versions are given instead of just one, which may not be correct.
  
  I agree that there are several different claims about the age of many of these victims, stating the obvious they cannot all be correct. The newspapers were more often than not, wrong. I accept the version by Major Bolton (page 196 in Davey) that the Van Staden’s were not involved in the war. The two Van Staden boys were respectively 17 and 12 years old. We can compare all the sources one day.
  
  Chris is not the only child murdered (One of the 8 Boers, J.J. Du Preez, was 16 while one of the 6 Boers, P.J. Geyser was 12 years old), Chris probably was the youngest one relevant to the Morant and Handcock matters. Morant (Witton page 81) is claimed to have responded to Witton being charged with nine murders: “… that is nothing, I am charged with twelve, and an infanticide.”
  
  After having reviewed all that I could find, much of it in Afrikaans, I believe Chris was 12 years old. An exhumation of the grave could put it beyond doubt. Charles Leach is also aware of a documented eye witness account, which will break any reasonable fathers’ hart.
  
  (James asked me to produce a birth certificate for Chris Van Staden, he went silent when I asked for the same for Morant!)
  
  Hopefully we will be able to meet one day and talk about what a fascinating case this is.
Permalink

21

4 months ago

Donald William Pedler

Retired (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

One again the Myth of Morant dances on stage and screeen.
In the words of one best placed to know, Lt Witton, Morant and Handcock were guilty of murder and perjury in the Hesse case at least.
In a letter from Witton to their defence council in late 1929 Witton stated that he, Witton , escaped being charged with the murder of Hesse at the initial interviews because he was able to convince the panel of his total ignorance of the mattae. When the three defeb=ndants were able to get together during…

show full comment

One again the Myth of Morant dances on stage and screeen.
In the words of one best placed to know, Lt Witton, Morant and Handcock were guilty of murder and perjury in the Hesse case at least.
In a letter from Witton to their defence council in late 1929 Witton stated that he, Witton , escaped being charged with the murder of Hesse at the initial interviews because he was able to convince the panel of his total ignorance of the mattae. When the three defeb=ndants were able to get together during the various trials, Witton asked Handcock what he knew of the matter. Handcock's reply was "Weren't you standing behind me when Morant asked me if I was game to follow the Missionary and wipe him out?
Witton goes on to describe the murder as a "Most cold Blooed affair" Which was covered up by a defence cooked up. He also states the as Morant and Handcock were found not guilty in that case, his lips were sealed. That might explain why the story was conviently omitted in"Scapegoats of the Empire"
Further comments on this matter can be found in "Closed File" by KIt Denton and "Zombie Myths of Australian Military History" T he Murderer as Martyr by Craig Wilcox.
Donald W. Pedler.
Permalink

25

4 months ago

Andries Hendrik Pretorius

(logged in via Facebook)

insightful unconstructive

James Unkles when you stop telling lies about Morant and his deeds, then people like Craig Wilcox, Charles Leach and I will stop telling the truth about you and your baseless claims that Morant was innocent.

You played the man not the ball.

The facts are:
1. Morant was an Englishman NOT an Australian.
2. Morant was found GUILTY of the murders of innocent civilians including a member of the Red Cross and children as young as twelve, such as Chris Van Staden.
3. Morant was not prosecuted for…

show full comment

James Unkles when you stop telling lies about Morant and his deeds, then people like Craig Wilcox, Charles Leach and I will stop telling the truth about you and your baseless claims that Morant was innocent.

You played the man not the ball.

The facts are:
1. Morant was an Englishman NOT an Australian.
2. Morant was found GUILTY of the murders of innocent civilians including a member of the Red Cross and children as young as twelve, such as Chris Van Staden.
3. Morant was not prosecuted for many of the murders he was known to have been involved in, due to the race of both the victims and the witnesses.
4. Lt George Witton indicated in 1929 that Handcock had confessed to the murder of reverend Heese and his driver.
5. Handcock and Morant also murdered one of their own men, Tpr Van Buuren because he would not keep quiet about their criminal behaviour.
6. A competent Court would only be able to make a decision after reviewing the courts martial transcripts.
7. ALL Courts Martial transcripts of the time have been destroyed.
8. You have not been appointed by Morant as his legal representative. No on even knows who his family is. If you claim otherwise then you are a liar. This FACT has been documented in every book on the Morant subject. Yet you claim to represent a man who has been dead for 110 years!
9. If you are so confident of your case then why have you done everything in your power to AVOID going to Court to appeal the murder?

The only logical conclusion is that you know that you are hoping for an emotional decision rather than a rational one based on fact!

Bleszinsky's book like Renars was written for the "great, unthinking, unreasoning people who will not let this story die".

Clearly you are part of this target group.
1. Permalink
  
  24
  
  In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 4 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Dear Richard,
  
  I see you know significantly more about the case than Jim, still your "facts" are selective and incomplete.
  
  1. While Morant, an Englishman, went to war with an Australian unit, Australia never declared war against the Boers. When Morant and Handcock were involved in the murders, most of which they did not deny, they were part of a South African unit funded by Capt Levy who hoped to secure the liqour licences on the train route... Does that make Morant a South African?
  2. Botha…
  
  show full comment
  
  Dear Richard,
  
  I see you know significantly more about the case than Jim, still your "facts" are selective and incomplete.
  
  1. While Morant, an Englishman, went to war with an Australian unit, Australia never declared war against the Boers. When Morant and Handcock were involved in the murders, most of which they did not deny, they were part of a South African unit funded by Capt Levy who hoped to secure the liqour licences on the train route... Does that make Morant a South African?
  2. Botha shot the 12 year old boy with the APPROVAL of one Harry Harbord Morant, not Kitchener or the Devil's. Being a hundred miles from home is hardly enough reason to be summarily executed...
  3. You are correct the British did pay compensation as a result of the murders, however a little research will show that it took many years to achieve this. Major Bolton had to work hard for many years to prove the facts. Your little conspiracy theory does not align with complete facts.
  4. Strange how quickly those who cry for "justice", rely on legal technicalities like "hearsay", when you know the facts are different. Jim too is quite happy to accept Wittons version without external coroboration but ONLY when it suits him. Handcock was placed at the scene by a witness. Strange too how you accept the not guilty verdict fully but dispute the guilty verdicts by the same Courts Martial...
  5. Major Lenehan was convicted for not reporting the murder of Van Buuren. This case like many others had a problem, their were no witnesses. This does not change the facts. The depositions show that the claims by Handcock that Van Buuren was shot by Boers was at best improbable.
  6. Van Buuren was shot, but Morant and Handcock also made several failed attempts on the lives of members of the BVC to silence them. There were attempts by Morant and Handcock on the lives of Sgt Wrench, Sergt Rogers, Tpr Lucas and Tpr Dale. Not exactly heroes in my view when they shot at their own men it an attempt to cover up their cowardly criminal behaviour.
  
  Some more facts.
  
  The complaint penned by Australian R.M. Cochrane that led to the eventual Courts Martial was made by BVC men. These included a number of Australians and New Zealanders.
  
  The case was investigated by an Australian, Capt de Bertodano!
  
  Real Australian heroes like Tpr Churton, who bravely objected to the cowardly acts of murder have gone unrecognised, mostly due to people searching for fame... Instead of truth!
  
  Churton is a real brave Aussie hero, someone who could stand up to a misguided authority figure! Someone who protected those who it was his duty to protect.
  1. Permalink
    
    22
    
    In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 4 months ago
    
    Richard Williams
    
    Retired (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Hello Andries,
    I'm glad you acknowledged my facts.
    
    1. I'm not sure of your point here. In any case Morant's nationality is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. He was still scapegoated to protect more senior people.
    2. According to Charles Leach's Anglo Boer War Museum site Botha actually volunteered to shoot Chris van Staden. Surely you are not suggesting that he wasn't to blame because he was only following Morant's orders. Wasn't Morant just following Taylor's orders? The Deputy Judge Advocate…
    
    show full comment
    
    Hello Andries,
    I'm glad you acknowledged my facts.
    
    1. I'm not sure of your point here. In any case Morant's nationality is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. He was still scapegoated to protect more senior people.
    2. According to Charles Leach's Anglo Boer War Museum site Botha actually volunteered to shoot Chris van Staden. Surely you are not suggesting that he wasn't to blame because he was only following Morant's orders. Wasn't Morant just following Taylor's orders? The Deputy Judge Advocate General Colonel St.Clair believed so. I'm not defending the shooting of the "8 Boers" but I'm sick of hearing that they were civilians when clearly they had been part of a commando. Morant believed they belonged to the same one that mutilated and killed his friend Captain Hunt and it was most probably Leonard Ledeboer who told him that.
    3. I've just read a list of victims on kruger2canyon.linmedia website, dated 30 September 2011 where Ronnie Visser and Charles Leach are trying to round up descendants of victims. According to the list Morant was only involved in the killings he has already been associated with - all the rest were the work of the real villain: Kitchener's appointee Captain Taylor.
    4. The only witness was Silas Juno who came upon the scene of Heese's murder just after it happened. He gave a statement to Rev. Krause in which he described an armed rider who passed him just previously and whose horse was tethered at the murder scene. His statement is in Arthur Davey's book and also Kit Denton's "Closed File". His description of the rider does not match Peter Handcock in several details but better still he was called as a witness in the court-martial and could not identify Handcock as the armed rider. He told this to another Berlin missionary Rev. J. Wedepohl some time after the trial. The Wedepohl document is in the Kit Denton collection in the Australian War Memorial. I could equally suggest that it's strange how people are prepared to accept Witton's ambiguous claims in his 1929 letter as indisputable fact because it suits them but label him a liar in so many other matters.
    5. In the Lenehan trial (where Lenehan was sentenced to a remprimand on the charge of failing to report van Buuren's shooting) Handcock virtually admitted to shooting van Buuren on the orders of Tayor and Robertson. I still ask the question - why wasn't anybody charged? If they charged Handcock they would have had to charge Captains Taylor and Robertson as well.
    6. Even Arthur Davey described the Cochrane Memorandum which detailed those bizarre alleged attempts you mention as "a blend of fact, hearsay and surmise, bears the stamp of hastiness". I suspect that these allegations were the "statements of bad men" that the Pietersburg military chaplain, Rev. Joshua Brough later wrote about.
    
    Investigations had already been underway for a month when the 15 BVC men signed the "Cochrane letter". In fact, by the time it was signed on 4 October 1901 Taylor had already been recalled. There were only two Australians in the "15" - Tpr. A.WM.Thompson and Tpr. John Silke. Silke was a member of the Visser firing party and Thompson the "8 Boers" so they probably didn't need much encouragement to sign. In fact, the "Cochrane letter" seems to be the means by which Kitchener was able to shift the focus away from Taylor and onto the more junior and less experienced BVC officers. Even Craig Wilcox acknowledges that "possibly through deals done with Robert Cochrane and Alfred Taylor, two men had been executed for crimes that others had joined in committing and in most cases were like those being committed by perhaps hundreds of soldiers South Africa." (Australia's Boer War Page 296)
    
    I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with regard to Muir Churton, but he was a New Zealander by the way.
  2. Permalink
    
    15
    
    In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 4 months ago
    
    james unkles
    
    military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Andries, while you bicker over history and insignificant issues, I am focused on developments since the former Attorney General's, (Robert McClelland, MP) announcement last October . In his letter to me Mr McClelland stated in part:
    'I was impressed by the significant work that you have undertaken on the men's cases. You have obviously undertaken significant research into the men's convictions and sentences and it is clear that you are dedicated to ensuring that this matter is comprehensively…
    
    show full comment
    
    Andries, while you bicker over history and insignificant issues, I am focused on developments since the former Attorney General's, (Robert McClelland, MP) announcement last October . In his letter to me Mr McClelland stated in part:
    'I was impressed by the significant work that you have undertaken on the men's cases. You have obviously undertaken significant research into the men's convictions and sentences and it is clear that you are dedicated to ensuring that this matter is comprehensively examined. I am sure your efforts are appreciated by the men's families''. I have been persuaded that this case does raise procedural fairness concerns. I want to ensure that the British government is aware that questions exist as to whether the men received fair treatment in accordance with the standards accepted at the time.'
    
    Andries, the significance of Mr McClelland's public announcement cannot be ignored or minimised. For the first time since 1902, an Australian Minister, a member of Cabinet and the Commonwealth's most senior legal officer, has expressed Australian government concern about the manner in which these men were investigated, tried and sentenced. Wail as you will, but nothing will change this historic declaration that echoes previous Australian government action. Former Prime Ministers, Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin lobbied the British government between 1902 and 1904 for the release of George Witton. Their work, which was supported by Witton's counsel, Isaac Isaacs, KC, MP (later to be Governor General and Chief Justice of the High Court), eventually succeeded and Witton was released. The cause of Witton's release was even supported MPs including Winston Churchill and a petition submitted by the South Africans.
    The descendants of these men, whose interests I represent, have taken great comfort from Mr McClelland's decision. His determination was made after 2 years of careful consideration of the evidence and my submissions. The advice of his senior advisors in the Attorney General's department was not based on a whim or a suspicion but on the evidence and an appreciation of military laws and procedures of 1902. May well you and others bleat about history and squabble over disputed detail. Ms Roxon (as assisted by her advisers) will continue to consider the same issues that were reviewed by Mr McClelland and will make a decision based on legal principles. The fact remains, this case will be reviewed by an independent authority and hopefully the controversy that has plagued this case for 112 years will be resolved. Please stop your uncivilised insults and lend your support to a fair process of review, unless of course your fear that an independent tribunal may consider jurisprudential principles that you are ignorant of and produce results that are unpalatable to you.
    1. Permalink
      
      20
      
      In reply to james unkles, 3 months ago
      
      Andries Hendrik Pretorius
      
      (logged in via Facebook)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      James,
      
      I accept that history, detail and facts don't interest you at all... since it interferes with your self interest. You go around and show the movie, Breaker Morant, to people to gain sympathy for your cause. Yet you would never mention that that version, while very entertaining, is not factual.
      
      My and others' interest in justice for the murders of innocent people is hardly petty.
      
      On 27 Oct 2011 I wrote on your blog: "if Robert McClelland can associate himself, then he may need to reconsider his day job."
      
      It seems that the Australian PM agreed with me soon afterwards...
      
      Hopefully Ms Roxon will repair the damage done to the reputation of the office, by her predecessor.
      
      Revisiting a pardon for Billy The Kid, has also been used by several politicians seeking higher office...
      1. Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 3 months ago
        
        james unkles
        
        military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Oh come on Andries, surely you can do better than your latest rant. You suggest that PM, Julia Gillard agreed with your views of the Morant saga and replaced Robert McClelland with Nicola Roxon as Attorney General. Next you will say that as McClelland backed South Africa in the rugby and not Australia, he was replaced as AG!!! I must say learend writers and journalists, who analysed the details of the cabinet reshuffle in December 2011, would be amused by your theory. I can assure you, the Morant…
        
        show full comment
        
        Oh come on Andries, surely you can do better than your latest rant. You suggest that PM, Julia Gillard agreed with your views of the Morant saga and replaced Robert McClelland with Nicola Roxon as Attorney General. Next you will say that as McClelland backed South Africa in the rugby and not Australia, he was replaced as AG!!! I must say learend writers and journalists, who analysed the details of the cabinet reshuffle in December 2011, would be amused by your theory. I can assure you, the Morant matter had nothing to do with replacing McClelland. I think you need to carefully consider what Mc Clelland stated about his decision to make a submission to the British government and aspects of the Morant trials, including denial of due legal process. Mc Clelland and his senior officers have studied the case for pardons since I first petitioned the Queen. His advisers have had access to all of my materials, submissions etc and notwithstanding letters from individuals such as Wilcox and others, he was satisfied that a case existed that needs to be represented to the British on a government-to-government level. I am pleased to say that the same materials and evidence is now being reviewed by Nicola Roxon and no doubt she will be briefed by the same officers who assisted Robert McClelland. I doubt that your theory about McClelland’s removal from the post of Attorney General will attract the attention let alone support of Nicola Roxon. Robert McClelland’s decision announced last October is the most significant development in 110 years since the trials and executions. Perhaps it has escaped your attention as you make a preposterous suggestion about McClelland’s shift in cabinet. Not since Australian PMs Deakin and Barton interceded on behalf of George Witton to secure his release from life imprisonment in 1903 has an Australian government taken decisive action regarding this matter. I am writing about the history of this and McClelland's intervention and will email you a copy after its publication in a reputable journal. It will add to the intrigue of a case that calls for an independent inquiry free of political bias and vested interests of historians and organisations determined to protect British interests.
        
        PS: As much as I enjoy the movie, it does not form part of my submissions or presentations to interest groups. If I do attract sympatrhy for the cause, its not from the movie but compelling evidence about the injustice suffered by these three Australian veterans. I suggest you read the comments on the petition attached to my web site, www.breakermorant.com
        
        Permalink
        
        7
        
        In reply to james unkles, 3 months ago
        
        Andries Hendrik Pretorius
        
        (logged in via Facebook)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Unkles,
        
        I am extremely amused to see that you are writing about the HISTORY of this, given your dim view of both professional and amateur historians. One has to wonder in which category you would place yourself.
        
        Mr Unkles please inform us about the reasons for McClelland being dispatched as Attorney General. You must know the reasons, in order to be in a position to “assure” us that it was NOT due to his self-serving use of the Morant matter.
        
        I have also been corresponding with McClelland…
        
        show full comment
        
        Mr Unkles,
        
        I am extremely amused to see that you are writing about the HISTORY of this, given your dim view of both professional and amateur historians. One has to wonder in which category you would place yourself.
        
        Mr Unkles please inform us about the reasons for McClelland being dispatched as Attorney General. You must know the reasons, in order to be in a position to “assure” us that it was NOT due to his self-serving use of the Morant matter.
        
        I have also been corresponding with McClelland and have yet to receive a reply on my request for 30 minutes with him. Strange that he would give only one side a hearing. Not objective at all.
        
        If your evidence is so compelling then as a lawyer you should be well equipped to proceed with the matter in a Court of law. You don’t need anyone permission for that. You have also sought money for this and promised to pay the remainder to flood victims. We have yet to see evidence of an audit on these funds though.
        
        Ironically even Witton stated that a Court of law should be the only body to judge a person, I believe proceeding to Court is the appropriate channel for an appeal.
        
        Emotional appeals to the Queen and politicians highlights that you are well aware that your case will not last 5 minutes in Court.
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 3 months ago
        
        james unkles
        
        military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Thanks Andries, no resposne to you from Mr McClelland was for one reason. A lack of substance in your letter and an over reliance on abusive language and claims not supported by fact or law. I have said this before, but his replacement in cabinet had nothing to do with his support of this case. The senior lawyers in the attorney general's department studied my materials for two years. They advised Mc Clelland on all aspects of the case and he adopted their recommendations. I am of course happy…
        
        show full comment
        
        Thanks Andries, no resposne to you from Mr McClelland was for one reason. A lack of substance in your letter and an over reliance on abusive language and claims not supported by fact or law. I have said this before, but his replacement in cabinet had nothing to do with his support of this case. The senior lawyers in the attorney general's department studied my materials for two years. They advised Mc Clelland on all aspects of the case and he adopted their recommendations. I am of course happy to go to court if necessary.
        
        Last night the Mr Alex Hawke, MP made a resaoned plea in his address to MPs. It is available on Hansard. It is an historic development and again demonstrates how Australians want this case resolved. I appreciate you don't include yourself in the national desire to have this case resolved. The address stated in part:
        
        Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:09): I rise today to mark the 110-year anniversary of the sentencing of three Australian veterans at the Boer War. The Breaker Morant case, who was convicted in 1902 along with two others, Peter Handcock and George Witton, for executing Boer prisoners of war is, of course, embedded in our nation's psyche. On behalf of their descendants, who still seek but are unable access justice, I rise once again in this parliament to say that it is timely for the Australian government to do everything it can to assist the modern-day descendants of these men to access a judicial review of this case. It is the case that the executions were conducted with extreme haste and without appeal. The Australian government was not informed until some two months after the events. At the same time around 80,000 Australians
        signed a petition to release George Witton and to pardon Morant and Handcock. Considering that at this time this represented about 2.5 per cent of Australia's population, this was an extraordinary number of people. Today,
        of course, it still remains in the psyche that this injustice could be perpetuated upon Australian soldiers in that the executions were done without fair process or judicial review. I last addressed this parliament on 15 March 2010 after a public hearing conducted by the Petitions Committee. On that occasion I described the case for the pardons as strong and compelling. Given that other countries in recent times, including Canada and Ireland, have sought redress of injustices on behalf of the British in World
        War I and have received same under the Defence Act 1903 and, given that the men who were executed—Morant, Witton and Handcock—led to the saving of hundreds of Australian soldiers' lives in World War I because they were unable to be executed by the British because of what had happened in the Boer War, I think it is important
        that we seek British government's assistance in releasing all of the available records in relation to this case so that the modern day descendants can know what happened and rightly, if necessary, receive a judicial review and pardon. It is an episode that appeals greatly to every Australian because of the doctrine of fairness which says that noone
        should be treated differently because of their birth, rank or status. We do know that these men were treated differently because of their birth, rank and status. We certainly need legends in Australian history. I note that the former Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced that he was persuaded by the evidence that had been submitted to him that these men may not have been tried and sentenced according to the laws of 1902, and that he was concerned about the absence of procedural fairness. He also announced that he would write to the British government to make his views known, which he did at the time. The matter now rests with the current Attorney-General, the member for Gellibrand, Nicola Roxon, for consideration and action.
        I am convinced that some form of redress is necessary in this matter and could provide the current generations with some relief after decades of controversy. The passing of time does not diminish any injustice. I urge members of this parliament to support the review undertaken by the former Attorney-General and urge the current Attorney-
        General to forward the evidence that substantiates calls to overturn the convictions and sentences of these men.
        
        Permalink
        
        2
        
        In reply to james unkles, 3 months ago
        
        Andries Hendrik Pretorius
        
        (logged in via Facebook)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Hi James,
        
        I find your response extremely concerning.
        
        Where did you hear about the opinion and or content of my submission to McClelland? I have not been given access to your submissions, neither have I been provided with an opinion about the merits of your submission.
        
        If the law and or facts in my submissions are disputed then please let me know which parts of my submission is in dispute, so that I could provide more information or retract it if I am indeed wrong. I have apologised when I got it wrong in the past.
        
        If you have been given access to or information about my submissions then this raises very serious questions about the integrity of the previous AG and proves that he preferred one party...
        
        I call on you to clarrify this.
        
        Permalink
        
        3
        
        In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 3 months ago
        
        james unkles
        
        military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        relax Andries, no confidentiality has been broken, I repeat I do not have or been shown your letter. You will have to trust my word on this. What did you think of Alex Hawke's address?
Permalink

1

3 months ago

james unkles

military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

A final word after 110 years of injustice!

On 27 February, 2012, it will be 110 years since lieutenants Harry 'Breaker' Morant and Peter Hancock were executed for offences of their British superiors. These men and George Witton were denied fair trials.

The descendants of these three Australian veterans call on Attorney General, Nicola Roxon to do what her predecessor, Robert McClelland did in 2011, and call on the British government to appoint an independent inquiry into the case for pardons…

show full comment

A final word after 110 years of injustice!

On 27 February, 2012, it will be 110 years since lieutenants Harry 'Breaker' Morant and Peter Hancock were executed for offences of their British superiors. These men and George Witton were denied fair trials.

The descendants of these three Australian veterans call on Attorney General, Nicola Roxon to do what her predecessor, Robert McClelland did in 2011, and call on the British government to appoint an independent inquiry into the case for pardons. This injustice must come to an end!

Cathy Morant, a direct descendant of Lieutenant Morant wrote to Ms Roxn recently and is commended for her determination to represent the feelins of the descendants of these three veteran Australians. Cathy stated in part:

'As a direct descendant of Lieutanant Morant, I have been actively involved as a representative of the Morant family to gain a pardon for my grandfather, Lieutenant Morant, and his colleagues, Lieutenants Handcock and Witton, for a number of years. This quest for justice is led by James Unkles, whose compelling and thorough work seeks to obtain justice through for these proud soldiers who served Australia to their utmost, and to bring about full pardons.

I understand that Mr McClelland reviewed the case for pardons and received expert advice from senior officers in your Department. I note that in October 2011, Mr McClelland publicly stated his concerns about the denial of ‘due legal process’ in the investigation, trial and sentencing of these men in 1902.

I wish to urge the Commonwealth to press the British government for an independent inquiry to finally settle this controversial case. I join with all Australians who are extremely concerned and upset about the treatment of these Australian veterans to ask you to continue your predecessor’s actions before you took on the office of Attorney General

I had hoped that the descendants’ plea to the British Defence Secretary in February 2011 would have convinced the British government to take the case for pardons seriously. The British Government however declined to act to avoid scrutiny of a case, one that has attracted much public support from community leaders, judicial figures, and members of parliament. Mr Unkles’ untiring work has exposed the reasons given by the British Government to be unjustified.

As the direct descendant of Lieutenant Morant, and on behalf of the descendants of Lieutenants Handcock and Witton, I strongly urge you to present a compelling representation to the British Government to initiate a review to clear these men; a review that is independent of both government and political bias.

Our families’ histories for over a century have been blighted by the manner in which the British military superiors treated our ancestors. In particular, Lieutenants Morant, Handcock, and Witton were denied contact with their relatives to notify them of their arrest, subsequent trial, and their death sentences. Perhaps the most distressing and cruel injustice was the Lieutenants’ denial of contact with the Australian government, and the ability to exercise of their legal right to plea for mercy to the King before the sentences were carried out.

On behalf of the descendants of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock, and Witton, I urge you to make representations for full pardons to the British Government to bring about the rightful conclusion to this 110-year long shameful controversy. This controversy has blighted the reputation of these three proud soldiers, and their descendants; men who were clearly the victims of wrongdoing by the British military/government legally, morally, and through the military chain of command and justice.'
1. Permalink
  
  4
  
  In reply to james unkles, 3 months ago
  
  Andries Hendrik Pretorius
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Dear Mr Unkles,
  
  May I call you Mr Unkles, I hope so since I see you refer to yourself in the third person and as Mr Unkles!
  
  Lt Morant was an Englishman, who admitted most of the murders he committed. He was therefore a guilty Englishman representing Britain, while serving in a South African irregular unit. Australia has absolutely no vested interest in Morant. If Morant did suffer an injustice then England should feel aggrieved NOT Australia.
  
  Captain Bulala Zonke Matshangane Taylor may…
  
  show full comment
  
  Dear Mr Unkles,
  
  May I call you Mr Unkles, I hope so since I see you refer to yourself in the third person and as Mr Unkles!
  
  Lt Morant was an Englishman, who admitted most of the murders he committed. He was therefore a guilty Englishman representing Britain, while serving in a South African irregular unit. Australia has absolutely no vested interest in Morant. If Morant did suffer an injustice then England should feel aggrieved NOT Australia.
  
  Captain Bulala Zonke Matshangane Taylor may have had a Shangaan nickname, but that hardly made him a Shangaan.
  
  Morant had no children! This is widely documented and has been researched for 110 years, by people who lived at the time and by much more credible people than yourself, Mr Unkles.
  
  Mr Unkles, I have offered you $1000, to donate to the charity of your choice, on the condition that you provide acceptable evidence of your ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that you have found a descendant of Morant (formerly Murrant…) let alone a direct descendant.
  
  You have put yet another nail in the coffin of your already brittle credibility.
  
  The Youtube video by the Enquiry (link provided below) dedicated to you, Mr Unkles, seems quite accurate.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOSMufWCsM
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 3 months ago
    
    Richard Williams
    
    Retired (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Andries,
    Once again you seem to have your foot firmly planted in your mouth.
    
    I don't know Cathy Morant but I have seen her interviewed as a Morant descendant from time to time in news items over the past couple of years. Neither you nor I have any right to question her claim to be a descendant of Harry Morant just as nobody questioned your claim to be a descendant of Marthinus Pretorius some time ago on Jim Unkles' blog. Historical record of Morant's life is very sparse at times and there are huge gaps where we know nothing about him. Perhaps certain people have chosen to keep their lives private - I don't know and neither do you.
    
    Jim Unkles wasn't referring to himself as "Mr. Unkles" but rather quoting from a letter from Cathy Morant.
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Richard Williams, 3 months ago
      
      Andries Hendrik Pretorius
      
      (logged in via Facebook)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Richard,
      
      I disagree, any claim to be a relative of any of those involved 110 years ago should be treated with a large measure of scepticism.
      
      It is well known that some people claim to be more than they are, some people even admitted to being Jack the Ripper when they were not.
      
      If someone wants more information on my claim then I am very happy to provide it.
      
      Someone should not claim to be a direct descendent of a much researched and childless person and then refuse to provide information.
      
      It is ironic that the refusal to provide information by the British led to the conspiracy theories in the first instance.
  2. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Andries Hendrik Pretorius, 3 months ago
    
    james unkles
    
    military lawyer (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Andries since you have referred to You Tube, log onto my contribution:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqKdDcfISSA
    
    The song is a plea for justice but it also highlights the brutality of a war that ended in a peace treaty, not victory for a British military machine that was about brutality against the Boer population, something that I think we agree on. Give the song careful reflection.
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to james unkles, 3 months ago
      
      Andries Hendrik Pretorius
      
      (logged in via Facebook)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Thanks Jim,
      
      I did listen to that, it reminds me of your favourite movie a great production with absolutely no correlation to the facts in the case.
      
      The reference to the Lord is strange, since Morant, a member of the Church of England, also claimed to be a Pagan.
      
      While the events happened during war, most of the events had little to do with war and much more to do with common criminality, murder and looting.
      
      The reference to INNOCENCE is really disingenuous, the men CONFESSED to most of…
      
      show full comment
      
      Thanks Jim,
      
      I did listen to that, it reminds me of your favourite movie a great production with absolutely no correlation to the facts in the case.
      
      The reference to the Lord is strange, since Morant, a member of the Church of England, also claimed to be a Pagan.
      
      While the events happened during war, most of the events had little to do with war and much more to do with common criminality, murder and looting.
      
      The reference to INNOCENCE is really disingenuous, the men CONFESSED to most of the murders. They were GUILTY! Only the punishment was disputed not their guilt, in most cases. Strange that St Clair’s notes on whom killed Tpr Van Buuren gets no mention by you…
      
      This must be the only case in the World where people are seriously agitating to protect the HONOUR of a War criminal who murdered the very people he was supposed to protect, civilians and even children.
      
      Since Captain Taylor was the “fons et origo” (cause of all the problems) as stated by St Clair and De Bertodano the unsupported reference to the King, etc is odd. The only shame is that more people were not found guilty.
      
      Remember that Col St Clair agreed with the review of the Court Martial (Davey, pages 139 to 141) by Col Pemberton in February 1902. This review indicated that:
      • the officers were guilty of murders, for
      • which there was no justification, and
      • should take the consequences.
      
      The Australian War Memorial has summed up the matter concisely: “Morant has sometimes been depicted as an Australian hero. But while he may have been brave, he was guilty of a war crime and so offers a poor model for a hero; shooting prisoners is not heroic.”
      
      It reminds me of Mark Twain’s quote: “It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare."
      
      What would society gain by making a hero out of war criminals? Should we ask soldiers to look up to men like Morant and Handcock or men like Christie and Churton?
      
      The following people also deserve justice:
      10 May 1901 – C.J. Van Den Berg was murdered by Captain Alfred Taylor in full view of Van Den Berg’s family.
      2 July 1901 – The “six Boers” murdered by another patrol of the BVC.
      • P.J. Geyser (12 years old)
      • F.J.G. Potgieter (18)
      • J.C. Greyling (25)
      • Jan F. Verceuil (31)
      • Jan J. Geyser (65)
      • Van Heerden
      Handcock stole a horse that had previously belonged to one of the “six Boers” (Davey, 106)
      
      4 July 1901 – Trooper J.H. Van Buuren of the BVC was shot by Lt Handcock (Witton, page 135 to 136). Lt Handcock had “repeatedly threatened to shoot any man who spoke a word of dissent from the questionable proceedings” (Davey, page 79). Van Buuren told the wives of the six Boers who was involved in their husbands’ murders. Van Buuren had been heard saying: “I do not care what the officers say. I will not see murder passed by and nothing said about it” (Davey, pages 96, 130 to 131 and 151). It is intereting to note that the first victim of Handcock was one of his comrades!
      
      27 July 1901 - Njoba and Mattugen were murdered by Captain Taylor.
      
      31 July 1901 – Sgt Eland wrote (Davey, page 30) about 3 Boers who were brought in by the BVC and that Morant had brought in 18 Boers, women and children with 15 wagons and 500 heads of cattle. Morant indicated that “he would not go out again unless he had his own troop with him”…
      
      7 August 1901 – Morant breaks down in front of his troops, and Captain Taylor urges them to avenge the death of their Capt Hunt, and to “give no quarter” (Cutlack, page 61). Witton reports leaving on patrol with Morant, along the way they met Lt Picton, escorting prisoners. On the orders of Lt Morant the prisoners were sent to Fort Edward along with a small escort. It begs the questions why were these prisoners not shot, I believe it was because they had nothing of any material value?
      
      11 August 1901 – Before the severely wounded Floris Visser (20) was shot on Morant’s and Handcock’s instigation, he was taunted. M.A. Churton stated under oath: “I saw the K-----s dancing a war dance round him, the officers looked on approvingly. Two oxen were killed for the K-----s to celebrate the occasion” (Davey, 98 to 100). No grave has ever been found and it has been suggested that his body was distributed between African witchdoctors.
      
      23 August 1901 – The “eight Boers” – murdered by BVC officers (Witton, page 62).
      • G.K. Westerhof
      • Baaukens. Witton “simplified matters by pulling the trigger and shooting him”.
      • Willem. Daniel Vahrmeijer
      • B. Wouters (40)
      • C.P.J. Smit – Ledeboer’s (BVC Intelligence agent) father in law owed Smit £130 (Davey, page 105).
      • Lochner (27)
      • J.J. Du Preez (16)
      • Pauskie
      
      23 August 1901 – Reverend C.A.D. Heese and his African driver – murdered by Morant and Handcock (Witton, 21 Oct 1929) as Heese was on his way to Pietersburg to report the murder of the “eight Boers” (Davey, page 44 and 138).
      
      24 August 1901 – An attempt on the life of BVC member Paul Cullen by Morant and Handcock (Davey, page 107 to 108). Attempts were also made on the lives of Sgt Wrench, Sgt Rogers, and Troopers Dale and Lucas (A. Davey, 1987, Breaker Morant and the Bushveldt Carbineers, pages 75-79). Tellingly the words "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" appear on Morant and Handcocks’ grave.
      
      5 September 1901 – The “children incident” – Women and children were fired on by Lt Hannam’s patrol. BVC men were disgusted to be asked to shoot children (Davey, page 108 to 110). Ununiformed Africans armed by the BVC also fired on the Boers.
      • Jacobus Daniel Grobler (6)
      • Jan Derk Grobler (14)
      • Their sister Elizabeth Maria (9) was shot through the neck and was later taken to Pietersburg Concentration Camp, it is unknown what happened to her.
      
      7 September 1901 – The “three Boers” – murdered by Morant and Handcock.
      • Chris Van Staden (12). Chris was suffering from fever and they were turned away from Elim Hospital to seek a permit from the British for treatment. Jim it is Chris’ death that you stated was LESS TRAGIC than calling Morant a murderer!!!
      • Roelf Van Staden (18)
      • Roelf (snr) Van Staden
      
      Witton (page 135) wrote that he was taking prisoners to Pietersburg on 7 September 1901. Was he blatantly defying “orders” or did they exist at all? This destroys the credibility of the “take no prisoners” claim.
      
      Also take time to reflect and think of the officers of the Courts Martial, especially Major Bolton, they should also receive natural justice if this case is to be reopened…
      
      The Youtube video by the Inquiry is definitely closer to the truth than your version.

Republish

Join the conversation

Sections

Founding Partners

Strategic Partners

About us