At Batavia no immediate action was taken in the matter, but a copy of the complaints, without the signatures to the document, was forwarded to the governor, who was required to answer to them. While the complainants were awaiting a reply from the Indian authorities, one of them, Adam Tas by name, a respectable burgher and a deacon of the Stellenbosch church, drew up a memorial to the directors in Holland. Tas was a native of the city of Amsterdam, who had received a good commercial education, and had come to Capetown in the capacity of bookkeeper in the service of the contractor Henning Huising, whose wife, Maria Lindenhof, was a sister of Tas’s mother. After serving as a bookkeeper for some time, Tas married a widow named Elizabeth van Brakel, whose former husband had left her a well-cultivated farm in the Stellenbosch district, and he then went to reside there. He had thus the qualifications and much of the knowledge necessary for the task he had taken in hand, but as he was ignorant of the instructions of the directors, the document which he drew up was in some points very much weaker than it might have been made if the official documents had been open for his inspection as they are now for ours. On the other hand, for the same reason some of the charges were perhaps slightly overdrawn, but the governor was subsequently unable to prove that the most serious of them were without solid foundation.
Articles of Complaint.
In this document the directors were informed of the governor’s extensive farming operations, and of his employment of the Company’s servants and slaves and of the use of the Company’s materials for his private service. He was accused of obtaining cattle by violent means from the Hottentots, who were provoked to retaliate upon innocent people for the wrongs done to them.[71] He was also accused of extorting cattle from burghers by improper means. He was stated to have been frequently absent at Vergelegen from two to six weeks at a time, when his public duties were neglected. He was charged with selecting all the best timber and staves for casks out of the Company’s stores, and paying less than the burghers had to pay for what was left; of preventing free trade in wine, and then extorting it from poor farmers at a very low price and selling it to foreign ships at an enormous profit; of monopolising all trade with foreigners; of requiring farmers to convey materials to Vergelegen without payment; of compelling the bakers, by threats of his displeasure if they did not, to buy his wheat at high prices; of defrauding the Company by not paying tithes of his wheat; of commandeering—to use an expressive colonial word—over four hundred woolled sheep from them without payment; of requiring to be bribed before he would issue title-deeds to farms; and of arranging the wine and slaughter licenses in such a manner that the holders could obtain what they needed at very low prices from the farmers by paying him very high prices for what he had to sell.
Historical Sketches.
There were some other charges against him, but they were of less importance than these, and they need not be mentioned.
The secunde, Samuel Elsevier, and the clergyman, Petrus Kalden, were charged with being occupied with agriculture to a very large extent, and of neglecting their duties in consequence. Frans van der Stel, the governor’s brother, was declared to be a perfect pest to the settlement.
This memorial was dated the 5th of January 1706, and was signed by Jan Rotterdam, Henning Huising, Abraham Diemer, Nicolaas Diepenauw, Jan van Meerland, Jacob de Savoye, Willem Mensink, Stephanus Vermey, Guillaume du Toit, Pieter van der Byl, Adam Tas, Jacob van Brakel, Jacob Plunes, Hercules du Pré, Jacobus van der Heiden, Wessel Pretorius, Jan Elberts, Hans Jacob Conterman, Nicolaas Elberts, Jean le Roux, Ary van Wyk, Pieter de Mont, Pierre Meyer, Reinier van de Zande, Jacobus Louw, Daniel Sevenhofen, Ferdinandus Appel, Matthys Greef, Willem van Zyl, Daniel Hugo, Jacques Theron, Etienne Niel, Jean du Buis, Jacques Malan, Douwe Frederiks, Christiaan Wynoch, François du Toit, Claude Marais, Arend Gildenhuis, Cornelis van Niekerk, Nicolaas van der Westhuizen, Pierre de Villiers, Paul Couvret, Abraham Vivier, Abraham Bleusel, Jacques Pienard, Pierre Vivier, Esaias Costeux, Pierre Mouy, Etienne Bruere, David Senekal, J. le Roux, Jacob Vivier, Pierre Rousseau, Salomon de Gourney, Pierre Cronje, Coenraad Cyffer, Charles Marais, Louis le Riche, Nicolaas Meyboom, Jacob Cloete, and Jan Hendrik Styger.
In a volume published by the governor some time afterwards, as well as in his statements to the directors and the Indian authorities,[72] he attempted to explain away some of these charges, and he succeeded so far that several must be pronounced not proven, while in some others he established his innocence, but in all that related to his extensive farming operations and to his making use of the Company’s servants, slaves, and materials, he failed completely in overthrowing the charges made against him. He does not refer to his not having paid tithes of his grain, for he certainly could not refute that charge.
Action of the Indian Authorities.
During the night of the 3rd of February 1706 the first five ships of the return fleet of that year, which sailed from the roads of Batavia on the 2nd of December 1705, cast anchor in Table Bay, and they were followed in the morning of the 4th by five others, all under the flag of Commander Jan de Wit. They had orders to remain here until the arrival of three ships from Ceylon and two others to be despatched later from Batavia, that all might sail together for Europe. It had been arranged with the English authorities in India that their return ships should also call at Table Bay, in order to proceed farther with the Dutch fleet, so that there might be a very strong force to oppose any French cruisers in the Atlantic.