I THE POTCHEFSTROOM ATROCITIES, &C.

There were more murders and acts of cruelty committed during the war at Potchefstroom, where the behaviour of the Boers was throughout both deceitful and savage, than at any other place.

When the fighting commenced a number of ladies and children, the wives and children of English residents, took refuge in the fort.  Shortly after it had been invested they applied to be allowed to return to their homes in the town till the war was over.  The request was refused by the Boer commander, who said that as they had gone there, they might stop and “perish” there.  One poor lady, the wife of a gentleman well known in the Transvaal, was badly wounded by having the point of a stake, which had been cut in two by a bullet, driven into her side.  She was at the time in a state of pregnancy, and died some days afterwards in great agony.  Her little sister was shot through the throat, and several other women and children suffered from bullet wounds, and fever arising from their being obliged to live for months exposed to rain and heat, with insufficient food.

The moving spirit of all the Potchefstroom atrocities was a cruel wretch of the name of Buskes, a well-educated man, who, as an advocate of the High Court, had taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen.

One deponent swears that he saw this Buskes wearing Captain Fall’s diamond ring, which he had taken from Sergeant Ritchie, to whom it was handed to be sent to England, and also that he had possessed himself of the carriages and other goods belonging to prisoners taken by the Boers. Another deponent (whose name is omitted in the Blue Book for precautionary reasons) swears, “That on the next night the patrol again came to my house accompanied by one Buskes, who was secretary of the Boer Committee, and again asked where my wife and daughter were.  I replied, in bed; and Buskes then said, ‘I must see for myself.’  I refused to allow him, and he forced me, with a loaded gun held to my breast, to open the curtains of the bed, when he pulled the bedclothes half off my wife, and altogether off my daughter.  I then told him if I had a gun I would shoot him.  He placed a loaded gun at my breast, when my wife sprang out of bed and got between us.”

      Buskes was afterwards forced to deliver up the ring.

I remember hearing at the time that this Buskes (who is a good musician) took one of his victims, who was on the way to execution, into the chapel and played the “Dead March in Saul,” or some such piece, over him on the organ.

After the capture of the Court House a good many Englishmen fell into the hands of the Boers.  Most of these were sentenced to hard labour and deprivation of “civil rights.”  The sentence was enforced by making them work in the trenches under a heavy fire from the fort.  One poor fellow, F. W. Finlay by name, got his head blown off by a shell from his own friends in the fort, and several loyal Kafirs suffered the same fate.  After these events the remaining prisoners refused to return to the trenches till they had been “tamed” by being thrashed with the butt end of guns, and by threats of receiving twenty-five lashes each.

But their fate, bad as it was, was not so awful as that suffered by Dr. Woite and J. Van der Linden.

Dr. Woite had attended the Boer meeting which was held before the outbreak, and written a letter from thence to Major Clarke, in which he had described the talk of the Boers as silly bluster.  He was not a paid spy.  This letter was, unfortunately for him, found in Major Clarke’s pocket-book, and because of it he was put through a form of trial, taken out and shot dead, all on the same day.  He left a wife and large family, who afterwards found their way to Natal in a destitute condition.

The case of Van der Linden is somewhat similar.  He was one of Raaf’s Volunteers, and as such had taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen.  In the execution of his duty he made a report to his commanding officer about the Boer meeting, and which afterwards fell into the hands of the Boers.  On this he was put through the form of trial, and, though in the service of the Queen, was found guilty of treason and condemned to death.  One of his judges, a little less stony-hearted than the rest, pointed out that “when the prisoner committed the crime martial law had not yet been proclaimed, nor the State,” but it availed him nothing.  He was taken out and shot.

A Kafir named Carolus was also put through the form of trial and shot, for no crime at all that I can discover.

Ten unarmed Kafir drivers, who had been sent away from the fort, were shot down in cold blood by a party of Boers.  Several witnesses depose to having seen their remains lying together close to Potchefstroom.

Various other Kafirs were shot.  None of the perpetrators of these crimes were brought to justice.  The Royal Commission comments on these acts as follows: ­

“In regard to the deaths of Woite, Van de Linden, and Carolus, the Boer leaders do not deny the fact that those men had been executed, but sought to justify it.  The majority of your Commissioners felt bound to record their opinion that the taking of the lives of these men was an act contrary to the rules of civilised warfare.  Sir H. de Villiers was of opinion that the executions in these cases, having been ordered by properly constituted Court Martial of the Boers’ forces after due trial, did not fall under the cognisance of your Commissioners.

“Upon the case of William Finlay the majority of your Commissioners felt bound to record the opinion that the sacrifice of Finlay’s life, through forced labour under fire in the trenches, was an act contrary to the rules of civilised warfare. Sir H. de Villiers did not feel justified by the facts of the case in joining in this expression of opinion (sic).  As to the case of the Kafir Andries, your Commissioners decided that, although the shooting of this man appeared to them, from the information laid before them, to be not in accordance with the rules of civilised warfare, under all the circumstances of the case, it was not desirable to insist upon a prosecution.

“The majority of your Commissioners, although feeling it a duty to record emphatically their disapproval of the acts that resulted in the deaths of Woite, Van der Linden, Finlay, and Carolus, yet found it impossible to bring to justice the persons guilty of these acts.”

It will be observed that Sir H. de Villiers does not express any disapproval, emphatic or otherwise, of these wicked murders.

But Potchefstroom did not enjoy a monopoly of murder.

In December 1880, Captain Elliot, who was a survivor from the Bronker Spruit massacre, and Captain Lambart, who had been taken prisoner by the Boers whilst bringing remounts from the Free State, were released from Heidelberg on parole on condition that they left the country.  An escort of two men brought them to a drift of the Vaal river, where they refused to cross, because they could not get their cart through, the river being in flood.  The escort then returned to Heidelberg and reported that the officers would not cross.  A civil note was then sent back to Captains Elliot and Lambart, signed by P. J. Joubert, telling them “to pass the Vaal river immediately by the road that will be shown to you.”  What secret orders, if any, were sent with this letter has never transpired; but I decline to believe that, either in this or in Barber’s case, the Boer escort took upon themselves the responsibility of murdering their prisoners, without authority of some kind for the deed.

The men despatched from Heidelberg with the letter found Lambert and Elliot wandering about and trying to find the way to Standerton.  They presented the letter, and took them towards a drift in the Vaal.  Shortly before they got there the prisoners noticed that their escort had been reinforced.  It would be interesting to know, if these extra men were not sent to assist in the murder, how and why they turned up as they did and joined themselves to the escort.  The prisoners were taken to an old and disused drift of the Vaal river and told to cross.  It was now dark, and the river was much swollen with rain; in fact, impassable for the cart and horses.  Captains Elliot and Lambart begged to be allowed to outspan till the next morning, but were told that they must cross, which they accordingly attempted to do.  A few yards from the bank the cart stuck on a rock, and whilst in this position the Boer escort poured a volley into it.  Poor Elliot was instantly killed, one bullet fracturing his skull, another passing through the back, a third shattering the right thigh, and a fourth breaking the left wrist.  The cart was also riddled, but, strange to say, Captain Lambert was untouched, and succeeded in swimming to the further bank, the Boers firing at him whenever the flashes of lightning revealed his whereabouts.  After sticking some time in the mud of the bank he managed to effect his escape, and next day reached the house of an Englishman called Groom, living in the Free State, and from thence made his way to Natal.

Two of the murderers were put through a form of trial, after the conclusion of peace, and acquitted.

The case of the murder of Dr. Barber is of a somewhat similar character to that of Elliot, except that there is in this case a curious piece of indirect evidence that seems to connect the murder directly with Piet Joubert, one of the Triumvirate.

In the month of February 1881, two Englishmen came to the Boer laager at Lang’s Nek to offer their services as doctors.  Their names were Dr. Barber, who was well known to the Boers, and his assistant, Mr. Walter Dyas, and they came, not from Natal, but the Orange Free State.  On arrival at the Boer camp they were at first well received, but after a little while seized, searched, and tied up all night to a disselboom (pole of a waggon).  Next morning they were told to mount their horses, and started from the camp escorted by two men who were to take them over the Free State line.

When they reached the Free State line the Boers told them to get off their horses, which they were ordered to bring back to the camp.  They did so, bade good-day to their escort, and started to walk on towards their destination.  When they had gone about forty yards Dyas heard the report of a rifle, and Barber called out, “My God, I am shot!” and fell dead.

Dyas went down on his hands and knees and saw one of the escort deliberately aim at him.  He then jumped up, and ran dodging from right to left, trying to avoid the bullet.  Presently the man fired, and he felt himself struck through the thigh.  He fell with his face to the men, and saw his would-be assassin put a fresh cartridge into his rifle and aim at him.  Turning his face to the ground he awaited his death, but the bullet whizzed past his head.  He then saw the men take the horses and go away, thinking they had finished him.  After waiting a while he managed to get up, and struggled to a house not far off, where he was kindly treated and remained till he recovered.

Some time after this occurrence a Hottentot, named Allan Smith, made a statement at Newcastle, from which it appears that he had been taken prisoner by the Boers and made to work for them.  One night he saw Barber and Dyas tied to the disselboom, and overheard the following, which I will give in his own words: ­

“I went to a fire where some Boers were sitting; among them was a low-sized man, moderately stout, with a dark-brown full beard, apparently about thirty-five years of age.  I do not know his name. He was telling his comrades that he had brought an order from Piet Joubert to Viljoen, to take the two prisoners to the Free State line and shoot them there.  He said, in the course of conversation, ’Piet Joubert het gevraacht waarom was de mensche neet dood geschiet toen hulle bijde eerste laager gekom het.’ (’Piet Joubert asked why were the men not shot when they came to the first laager.’) They then saw me at the fire, and one of them said, ’You must not talk before that fellow; he understands what you say, and will tell everybody.’

“Next morning Viljoen told me to go away, and gave me a pass into the Free State.  He said (in Dutch), ’you must not drive for any Englishmen again.  If we catch you doing so we will shoot you, and if you do not go away quick, and we catch you hanging about when we bring the two men to the line, we will shoot you too.’”

Dyas, who escaped, made an affidavit with reference to this statement in which he says, “I have read the foregoing affidavit of Allan Smith, and I say that the person described in the third paragraph thereof as bringing orders from Piet Joubert to Viljoen, corresponds with one of the Boers who took Dr. Barber and myself to the Free State, and to the best of my belief he is the man who shot Dr. Barber.”

The actual murderers were put on their trial in the Free State, and, of course, acquitted.  In his examination at the trial, Allan Smith says, “It was a young man who said that Joubert had given orders that Barber had to be shot. . . .  It was not at night, but in the morning early, when the young man spoke about Piet Joubert’s order.”

Most people will gather, from what I have quoted, that there exists a certain connection between the dastardly murder of Dr. Barber (and the attempted murder of Mr. Dyas), and Piet Joubert, one of that “able” Triumvirate of which Mr. Gladstone speaks so highly.

I shall only allude to one more murder, though more are reported to have occurred, amongst them ­that of Mr. Malcolm, who was kicked to death by Boers, ­and that is Mr. Green’s.

Mr. Green was an English gold-digger, and was travelling along the main road to his home at Spitzcop.  The road passed close by the military camp at Lydenburg, into which he was called.  On coming out he went to a Boer patrol with a flag of truce, and whilst talking to them was shot dead.  The Rev. J. Thorne, the English clergyman at Lydenburg, describes this murder in an affidavit in the following words: ­

“That I was the clergyman who got together a party of Englishmen and brought down the body of Mr. Green who was murdered by the Boers and buried it.  I have ascertained the circumstances of the murder, which were as follows: ­Mr. Green was on his way to the gold-fields.  As he was passing the fort, he was called in by the officers, and sent out again with a message to the Boer commandant.  Immediately on leaving the camp, he went to the Boer guard opposite with a flag of truce in his hand; while parleying with the Boers, who proposed to make a prisoner of him, he was shot through the head.”

No prosecution was instituted in this case.  Mr. Green left a wife and children in a destitute condition.

II PLEDGES GIVEN BY MR. GLADSTONE’S GOVERNMENT AS TO THE RETENTION OF THE TRANSVAAL AS A BRITISH COLONY.

The following extracts from the speeches, despatches, and telegrams of members of the present Government, with reference to the proposed retrocession of the Transvaal, are not without interest: ­

During the month of May 1880, Lord Kimberley despatched a telegram to Sir Bartle Frere, in which the following words occur:  “Under no circumstances can the Queen’s authority in the Transvaal be relinquished.”

In a despatch dated 20th May, and addressed to Sir Bartle Frere, Lord Kimberley says, “That the sovereignty of the Queen in the Transvaal could not be relinquished.”

In a speech in the House of Lords on the 24th May 1880, Lord Kimberley said: ­

“There was a still stronger reason than that for not receding; it was impossible to say what calamities such a step as receding might not cause.  We had, at the cost of much blood and treasure, restored peace, and the effect of our now reversing our policy would be to leave the province in a state of anarchy, and possibly to cause an internecine war.  For such a risk he could not make himself responsible.  The number of the natives in the Transvaal was estimated at about 800,000, and that of the whites less than 50,0000.  Difficulties with the Zulus and frontier tribes would again arise, and, looking as they must to South Africa as a whole, the Government, after a careful consideration of the question, came to the conclusion that we could not relinquish the Transvaal.  Nothing could be more unfortunate than uncertainty in respect to such a matter.”

On the 8th June 1880, Mr. Gladstone, in reply to a Boer memorial, wrote as follows: ­

“It is undoubtedly a matter for much regret that it should, since the Annexation, have appeared that so large a number of the population of Dutch origin in the Transvaal are opposed to the annexation of that territory, but it is impossible now to consider that question as if it were presented for the first time.  We have to do with a state of things which has existed for a considerable period, during which obligations have been contracted, especially, though not exclusively, towards the native population, which cannot be set aside.  Looking to all the circumstances, both of the Transvaal and the rest of South Africa, and to the necessity of preventing a renewal of disorders, which might lead to disastrous consequences, not only to the Transvaal but to the whole of South Africa, our judgment is that the Queen cannot be advised to relinquish the Transvaal.”

Her Majesty’s Speech, delivered in Parliament on the 6th January 1881, contains the following words:  “A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of vindicating my authority.”

These extracts are rather curious reading in face of the policy adopted by the Government, after our troops had been defeated.

III THE CASE OF INDABEZIMBI.

This is a case which came under my own notice.  The complainant is now a tenant of my own.  When Indabezimbi appeared before Mr. Cochrane and myself, his appearance fully bore out his description of the assault made upon him.  We did everything in our power to help him to recover his son and his property, but without effect.  The matter was fully reported to Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir E. Wood, and a question was asked on the subject in the House of Commons.  I append Mr. Courtney’s answer.  This case, which is perfectly authentic, will prove instructive reading, as showing the treatment the Kafir must expect at the hands of the Boer, now that he is no longer protected by us.  It must be remembered that the vast majority of such incidents are never heard of.  The Kafirs suffer, and are still.  The assault and robbery of Indabezimbi took place in Natal territory.

Statement of Indabezimbi

“I used to work on Mr. Robson’s son’s place, and on his death I went to Meyer’s (in the Utrecht district of the Transvaal) about a year ago.  I took all my property with me.  There lived on the farm old Isaac Meyer, Solomon Meyer, who died during the war, young Isaac Meyer, Jan Meyer, Martinus Meyer, also a man called Cornelius, a ‘bijwooner,’ who loved in Solomon’s place after he died.

“According to custom, I sent my son to work for old Isaac Meyer, as I lived on his place.  When the war began all the Meyer family moved further into the Transvaal, my son going with them as herd.  I went up to Klip River with them as driver, where the river forms the boundary between the Free State and Transvaal.  I returned at once, leaving my son with the Meyers.  He was a small boy about twelve years of age.  At the termination of the war the Meyers sent for me to drive them down.  I met them a day’s journey this side of Klip River.  I asked them where my son was.  Old Isaac Meyer told me he had sent him to look for horses; he did not return; and another boy was sent who brought the horses.  The horses were found close by.  No one went to look for my son.  I asked old Isaac Meyer for leave to go and offer a reward amongst the Kafirs for my son.  He refused, saying I must drive him home, and then he would give me a pass to come back and look for him.  On our arrival at the farm I and my wife again applied to old Isaac Meyer to be allowed to go and see about my son.  He refused, saying I must first shear the sheep.  I replied that he well knew that I could not shear sheep.  I said, ’How can I work when my heart is sore for my son?’ Meyer said again that I must wait awhile as the rivers were full.  I said how could that matter, seeing that both in coming and going with the waggons we crossed no rivers?  As he refused me a pass, I started without one to seek my son.  On arrival at Mavovo’s kraal I met my brother, who told me that I must go no further, or the Boers would shoot me.  Having no pass I returned.  On my return my wives told me that the Meyers had come every morning to look for me with guns to shoot me, telling them that ’it was now no longer the days for sjamboking (flogging with hide whips) the natives, but the days for shooting them.’  On hearing this I collected my goods, and by morning had everything on the Natal side of the Buffalo River ­on Natal ground.  About mid-day Martinus Meyer overtook us by Degaza’s kraal and asked me what I was doing on the Natal side of the river.  I told him I was leaving for Natal, because I found it altogether too hot for me in the Transvaal.  He said that if I came back he would make everything comfortable.  I refused.  He then attacked me with a knobkerrie, and would have killed me had not one of my wives, seeing that I was badly hurt, knocked him down with a piece of iron.  Martinus then mounted his horse and galloped off.  I then got on my horse and fled.  My wives hid themselves.  In the afternoon there came to the waggon Jan Meyer, Martinus Meyer, young Isaac Meyer, and the man called Cornelius.  They hunted all about for us with the object of shooting us, as they told Degaza’s Kafirs.  My wives then saw them inspan the waggon and take everything away.  I had a waggon, twelve oxen, four cows, and a mare, also a box containing two hundred pounds in gold, a telescope, clothes, and other things.  My wives found the box broken on the ground and all the contents gone.  Forty sacks of grain belonging to me were also taken.  I was robbed of everything I had, with the exception of the horse I escaped on.  The waggon was one I hired from my brother (a relation); the oxen were my own brother’s.  Eighty pounds of the money I got from the Standard Bank in Newcastle for oxen sold to the owner of the store on the Ingagane Drift.  The rest I had accumulated in fees from doctoring.  I am a doctor amongst my own people.  I come now to ask you to allow me to settle on your land as a refugee.

“(Signed) Indabezimbi, his X mark.

“This statement was made by Indabezimbi at Hilldrop, Newcastle, Natal, on the Seventeenth of August, Eighteen hundred and eighty-one, in the presence of the undersigned witnesses.

“(Signed) H. Rider Haggard. 
A. H. D. Cochrane. 
J. H. Gay Roberts.

“N.B. ­The outrage of which Indabezimbi has here given an account occurred within a week of the present date, August 17th, 1881.”

Statement of the woman Nongena, Wife of Indabezimbi

“My master’s name is Isaac Meyer; he lives in the Transvaal, south of Utrecht.  We have lived on the farm about a year.  On the farm lived also Jan Meyer, Martinus Meyer, and young Isaac Meyer, sons of old Isaac Meyer.  There was also another man on the farm, whose name I do not know.  When the waggon went up with the Meyers’ family to the centre of the Transvaal, when the late war broke out, my husband drove old Isaac Meyer’s waggon, and my son Ungazaan also went to drive on stock.  After my husband had driven the waggon to its destination in the Transvaal he returned to the kraal, leaving his son Ungazaan with the Meyers.  After the war was over my husband was sent for by the Meyers to drive back the waggons.  On arrival of the Meyers at the farm I found my husband had returned, but my son was left behind.  I asked my master where my son was; my master replied, ’He did not know, he had sent to boy to bring up horses, but he had not brought them.’  Another boy was sent who brought the horses.  He said he had not seen the boy Ungazaan since he left to look for the horses, as they had left the place the morning after the boy was missing.  My husband asked for a pass to go back and look for the boy; Meyer refused, and my husband went without one to look for Ungazaan, my son.  He returned without the boy, owing, he said, to the want of a pass.  My husband dared not go into the country without a pass.  During my husband’s absence, the three sons of old Isaac Meyer, namely, Martinus, Jan, and Isaac, came every morning to search for my husband, saying, ’We will kill him, he leaves our work to go without our leave for look for the boy.’  They came once with sjamboks, but afterwards with guns, saying they would kill him if they found him.  On hearing this my husband said, ‘We cannot then stay here longer.’  He then went at once and borrowed a waggon and twelve oxen, and during the night we packed the waggon three times, and took three loads across the Buffalo River to Degaza’s kraal, which is on Natal ground, forty sacks of grain, 200 pounds in a box, with clothes and other things, also mats and skins, and four head of cattle and a horse.  All these things were at Degaza’s kraal before sunrise the next morning.  The Induna Kabane, at the magistrate’s office at Newcastle, knows of the money, and from whence it came.  All the money is our money.

“About mid-day on the day after the night we moved, Martinus came on horseback to us at Degaza’s kraal, and I saw him beating my husband with a kerrie; he hit him also in the mouth with his fist.  He hit my husband on the head with a kerrie; he beat my husband on the foot when he was trying to creep away in a hut, and would have killed him had not one of his wives named Camgagaan hit Martinus on the head with a piece of iron.  Martinus, on recovery, rode away; my husband also fled on a horse.

“I with the other wives fled, and hid ourselves close by in the grass and stones.  Presently we saw from our own hiding-place three white men, armed with guns, seeking for us.  Their names were Martinus Meyer, Jan Meyer, and Isaac Meyer, all three sons of old Isaac Meyer.  They sought us in vain.  From our hiding-place we heard the waggon driven away; and later, when we went back to Degaza’s kraal, they told us that the Meyers had inspanned the waggon, and had returned with it to the Transvaal side of the Buffalo River.  The names of those who saw the Boers go away with the waggon are Gangtovo, Capaches, Nomatonga, Nomamane, and others.  The Boers took away on the waggon that night all the last load we had brought over from the Transvaal, together with all our clothes; and some of the sacks first brought over were loaded up, all our cattle were taken, and our box was broken, and the 200 pounds taken away.  We found the pieces of the box on the ground when we came from our hiding-place.  We then fled.  The people at Degaza’s kraal told us that the Boers had said that they would return, and take away that which they were forced to leave behind when they took the first load.  We have since heard from Degaza that the Boers came back again and took what remained of our property at Degaza’s kraal.  Degaza saw the Boers take the things himself.

“This is all I know of the facts.  The assaults and robbery took place, as near as I can say, about fourteen days ago.”

(Signed) Nongena, her X mark.

Gagaoola, also wife of Indabezimbi, states: ­“I have heard all that Nongena has told you.  Her words are true; I was present when the assault and robbery took place.”

(Signed) Gagaoola, her X mark.

These statements were made to us at Hilldrop, Newcastle, Natal, on the
Twenty-second of August, Eighteen hundred and eighty-one.

A. H. D. Cochrane.

H. Rider Haggard.

(Signed) Ayah, her X mark,
Interpreter.

Indabezimbi

“Mr. Alderman Fowler asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the British Resident at Pretoria had brought under the notice of the Transvaal Government the circumstances of an outrage committed in August last, by a party of Boers, on the person and property of a Kafir named Indabezimbi, who was at that time residing in Natal; and whether any steps had been taken by the authorities of the Transvaal either to institute a judicial inquiry into the matter, or to surrender the offenders to the Government of Natal.

“Mr. Courtney. ­On the 13th of October the British Resident reported that, according to promise, the Government has caused an investigation to be made at Utrecht, and informed him that the result was somewhat to invalidate the statement of Indabezimbi; but that the documents connected with the investigation at Utrecht would speedily be forwarded to him with a view to correspondence through him with the Natal Government.  No further communication has been received.  It must be observed that, in the absence of any extradition convention, a judicial inquiry in this case is practically impossible, the outrage, whatever it was, having been committed in Natal, and the offenders being in the Transvaal.  Her Majesty’s Government are taking active steps to re-establish a system of extradition, in pursuance of Article 29, of the Convention.  The despatches on this subject will be given to Parliament when the correspondence is completed.”

IV A BOER ADVERTISEMENT.

It may be interesting to Englishmen to know what treatment is meted out to such of their fellow-countrymen as have been bold enough, or forced by necessity, to remain in the Transvaal since the retrocession.  The following is a translation of an advertisement recently published in the “Volkstem,” a Transvaal paper, and is a fair sample of what “loyalists” have to expect.