One of the most controversial aspects of the case for the defence of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton has been their claim that they followed orders in shooting Boer prisoners. Critics over the decades have consistently criticised the defence argument and ‘thrown’ out the challenge to produce evidence that such orders were ever given.
Witton quoted defending officer, Major Thomas’ statement to the court. Thomas addressed superior orders, dealing with guerrillas operating under no rules of engagement or protocols of laws of war. In part he said, ‘the prisoners’ defence is that, no matter in what way the charge against them has been, or might have been framed, the action they respectively took in the summary execution of these eight Boers was justifiable, or, at any rate, not criminal’. ‘That which would be a crime, a felony, or a malicious act in time of peace may be quite justifiable in time of war, and doubly so in guerrilla warfare, waged against men who cannot be regarded as lawful belligerents, but only as lawless bands of marauders, who carry on desultory hostilities, combined with train wreckings and other uncivilised practices. Upon such an enemy I maintain our troops are justified in making the severest reprisals, and are entitled to regard them, not as lawful belligerents at all, but as outlaws.’ (page 112).
I submit that evidence exists that corroborates Witton’s claims that the accused were given specific orders not to take prisoners and their culpability should have been judged against such evidence.
The proposition is simple, if such orders did in fact exist, the actions of the accused must be assessed against a number of factors including:
- Their status as volunteers as opposed to being professionally trained permanent officers of the British Army;
- The accused, being members of the Bushveldt Carbineers signed ‘attestations’ to, ‘obey the orders of my superior officers and to be loyal to His Majesty, King Edward the VII, his heirs and successors’
- The accused held a bona fide belief that orders not to take prisoners was not obviously illegal.
Supporters of Morant have also argued that the orders emanated from Lord Kitchener himself in a desperate attempt to cobat the Boers who were inflicting significant losses in a ‘guerrilla’ style campaign against the British.
The issue of military command responsibility and obedience to superior orders has occupied the minds of lawyers and commanders for decades usually following war and its aftermath as occupiers have sought to hold accountable those responsible for excesses against prisoners of war and civilians.
This held true in the Boer War and in the trial of Morant, Handcock and Witton, (the accused) as their defence of superior orders received the attention of the courts martial and Lord Kitchener who had responsibility for approving death sentences.
At the heart of the defences raised by the accused was the proposal that their actions in executing Boer prisoners had been ordered by their superiors.
Ultimately, their plea was rejected and Morant and Handcock were executed for murdering Boers. Witton was also sentenced to death but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment and was later released from penal servitude following a petition lodged with the Crown.
Superior Orders
At the time of the offences, the law of reliance on superior orders recognised a defence depending on the circumstances. This was balanced against the British military’s authority that all Army personnel regardless of rank, whether personnel were permanent or volunteers drawn from the colonies had to swear allegiance to the King and to obey orders of their superiors. The Attestation of officers and soldiers of the Bushveldt Carbineers contained declarations that, ‘I hereby promise to obey orders of my superior officers.’
The Law – 1902
The law on the issue of superior orders was uncertain and drew its rationale from the provisions of the Manual of Military Law concerning obedience to lawful commands. The MML expressed clear direction that all lawful orders had to be complied with to preserve the integrity of Military Command. The serious wilful disobedience offence carried the maximum penalty of death. The second offence of disobedience characterised by hesitation, forgetfulness or misapprehension carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment or dismissal from the Army.
The Law of the Constitution (relevant to 1902) by Dicey stated:
‘When a soldier is put on trial on a charge of a crime, obedience to superior orders is not of itself a defence. A soldier is bound to obey any lawful order which he receives from his military superior. But a soldier cannot any more than a civilian avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke the law in bona fide obedience to the orders (say) of the commander in chief. This of course must be taken with the qualification that if it be such an order as a soldier might reasonably suppose his superior officer to have good grounds for giving, the soldier would not be criminally liable.’[i]
In summary and according to the claims by Witton in his book, Scapegoats of the Empire, the defence case claimed:
- Morant claimed he and Captain Hunt had acted on orders from Pretoria. He, Morant had been reprimanded by Hunt for bringing in 30 prisoners and was told not to do it again;
- Morant decided not to disregard the order from Hunt to shoot prisoners after the circumstances of Hunt’s death by Boers. He carried out orders that he believed were lawful;
- Under cross examination Morant stated he had orders to clear the Spelonken area of Boers and to take no prisoners. He had never seen written orders. He had not shot prisoners before the Visser incident;
- Morant told the court that Colonel Hamilton, Chief of Staff was the one who had given Captain Hunt orders that no prisoners were to be taken. Others including Handcock received those orders from Captain Hunt. Morant had only the word of Captain Hunt that Colonel Hamilton had given the order;
- Morant claimed he and Captain Hunt had acted on orders from Pretoria. He, Morant had been reprimanded by Hunt for bringing in 30 prisoners and was told not to do it again;
- Morant decided not to disregard the order from Hunt to shoot prisoners after the circumstances of Hunt’s death by Boers. He carried out orders that he believed were lawful;
- Under cross examination Morant stated he had orders to clear the Spelonken area of Boers and to take no prisoners. He had never seen written orders. He had not shot prisoners before the Visser incident;
- Lieutenant Picton also stated he had been told by Hunt not to take prisoners and not questioned their validity and had been reprimanded by Captain Hunt for bringing in prisoners. He had obeyed the order to command the firing party that shot Visser;
- Sergeant Major Hammett corroborated evidence as to shooting of prisoners;
- Defence counsel called evidence about orders given and the practices adopted in dealing with Boers;
- Civil Surgeon Johnston gave evidence that he had heard Morant had been reprimanded by Captain Hunt about bringing in prisoners;
- Captain Taylor was called to give evidence for the defence, and stated that he remembered one time when Lieutenant Morant brought in prisoners; he was asked by Captain Hunt why he brought them in; Capt. Hunt said they should have been shot. (references from Witton’s book pages – 83, 115, 137)
The significant point to be made here is that Morant, Handcock and Witton as with many others were colonial volunteers, not full time British soldiers and officers eductated and trained in the finer details of military law and custom. Colonial volunteers were under significant pressure to obey orders of their superior British officers.
Lieutenant Colonel Pratt on military law stated:
‘ A soldier is bound to obey the commands of his superior Officer and before a court martial, it would be held that a soldier is bound to obey the command of his superior Officer if the illegality of it was not on the face of it apparent’.
New Evidence of Superior Orders
In addition to the assertions made by Witton in his book, I have recently discovered material that corroborates his claims. The existence of orders not to take prisoners is contained in a legal opinion written by Colonel. J. St Clair, Deputy Judge Advocate General and addressed to Major General Kelly, Adjutant General. The opinion is dated 22 November 1901 and was written by St Clair after he had reviewed the report of the investigation conducted in November 1901.
The opinion recommended prosecution action against Morant as the ‘prime mover’ and Lieutenant Handcock as the ‘principal executioner’ of Boer prisoners. What is interesting in the legal opinion is St Clair’s conclusions, noting his access to a record of the investigation:
- ‘The idea that no prisoners were to be taken in the Spelonken appears to have been started by the late Captain Hunt and after his death continued by orders given personally by Captain Taylor.’[1]
- ‘Lieutenant Morant seems to have been the prime mover in carrying out these orders, Lieutenant Handcock willingly lent himself as the principal executioner of them.’
- ‘I agree with the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, the order given by Captain Taylor that no prisoners were to be taken was against the usage of modern warfare in my opinion rendered him personally responsible for the shooting of these 6 Boers who were coming in to surrender and who made defence when fired on as being an accessory before the fact he is liable to a charge of murder.’
- ‘The verbal orders given by Captain Taylor to the officers and men of the BVC at various times not to take prisoners rendered him personally responsible for these massacres and I think he is liable as an accessory before the fact.’
St Clair also made comments about Captain Taylor’s culpability in the murder of non combatants. He stated:
- ‘Case No 9. Captain Taylor should have been have been aware when he ordered these natives to be shot that he was exceeding his powers’;
- ‘The summary shooting of these two natives as spies does not appear to have been warranted by the evidence against them and Captain Taylor should have known that he was exceeding his powers in ordering summary punishment’;
- ‘Case 11. I think a charge for manslaughter will lie against Captain Taylor in this case.’
Significance of Attestation Papers
A document signed by Handcock on 28 February 1901 is the same in its content to the documents signed by Morant and Witton and other BVC volunteers and notes that ‘I hereby promise to obey the orders of my Superior Officers and to be loyal to His Majesty King Edward V11 his heirs and successors.’
This attestation highlights the predicament faced by volunteers like Handcock, Morant and Witton. They were uneducated and inexperienced colonials and unlike their British permanent counterparts, expected to follow the directions of their superiors without question. In the circumstances, they had every reason to believe that the orders given to them were lawful and designed to defeat a determined enemy who waged a guerrilla / insurgency style of warfare.
Similar documents were signed by other BVC men who were involved in shooting Boers, including Duckett and Hammett.
The proposition is simple, if such orders did in fact exist, the actions of the accused must be assessed against a number of factors including:
– Their status as volunteers as opposed to being professionally trained permanent officers of the British Army;
– The accused, being members of the Bushveldt Carbineers signed ‘attestations’ to, ‘obey the orders of my superior officers and to be loyal to His Majesty, King Edward the V11, his heirs and successors’;[1]
– The accused held a bona fide belief that orders not to take prisoners was not obviously illegal.
[1] Andrew Duckett & Ernest Hammett Attestation papers as signed by all BVC officers and soldiers
Conclusion
The findings of St Clair, a notable and senior lawyer responsible for reviewing inquiries and proceedings involving breaches of the Army Act was convinced by the evidence he reviewed against the accused, including Captain Taylor.
His findings about Captain Taylor are significant. He confirmed that Captain Taylor, (the superior officer of BVC officers and men), was responsible for issuing orders not to take prisoners. Indeed, Taylor followed his own orders when he directed the shooting of 6 Boers.
Captain Taylor played a pivotal role as Lord Kitchener’s Intelligence Officer. He took responsibility for directing BVC officers and men in fighting the Boers. In the assessment of the claims made by Witton in his book, it is clear that he, Morant and Handcock followed the directions given to them by Captain Hunt and Captain Taylor, both permanent British officers. Taylor and Hunt were superior to Morant and gave directions that they expected to be followed. In the circumstances, it would have been foolhardy for Morant or any other irregular volunteer soldiers or officers to disobey. Even if one concludes that they should have refused to obey an illegal order, Lord Kitchener was in error in not taking into account the issues raised by the courts in the recommendations for mercy. If ‘technically’ guilty of murder, it is clear that Morant, Handcock and Witton were under extreme pressure to obey the orders of their British superiors. The pressure was recognised in the recommendations for mercy, but not given sufficient weight by Lord Kitchener and his legal advisers.
It is also clear from St Clair’s findings that it was Captain Taylor who took the initiative to issue orders not to take prisoners. It was not at the instigation of Morant, who had been reprimanded by Captain Hunt for refusing to obey the order. He eventually followed the order once Captain Hunt had been killed, (Morant having an honest belief that Hunt had been tortured and killed by Boers). This is an important point since critics of Morant have argued that he alone had embarked on a ‘killing spree’. There is no evidence to substantiate the allegation. This is reflected in the finding of the Courts martial, convictions of three counts of murder involving 12 Boers and recommendations for mercy that recognised Morant’s loyal service to the Crown, his belief in following orders, his ignorance of military law and custom and his reaction to extreme provocation at the death of Captain Hunt.
This is not a case of pathological killing of innocent civilians, but inexperienced colonial volunteers following orders with a sense of loyalty in serving the Crown. Morant, Handcock and Witton were singled out for particular attention for a flawed strategy of fighting an enemy that used devious insurgency tactics to inflict great losses on the British military. The accused followed orders in belief that not taking prisoners was ordained at the highest level of command. Despite the findings of St Clair with respect to Captain Taylor, ultimately, those held responsible were not British superior officers but colonial volunteers of lower ranks.
However, in the case of certain medical conditions, low cost cialis glacialridgebyway.com treatment may be difficult to gauge or manage. Penegra Uses It is used viagra no prescription to treat erectile dysfunction but you should also reduce your weight for getting proper erection. Person facing incapability prescription viagra problem cannot have offspring. All in all, it is a wrong thought that the doxycycline has better and faster effect on curing hydrosalpinx. find out description buying viagra in india
God bless the breaker and his men.not guilty as charged. Sorry the breaker didn’t kill them all sooner. He would be alive with the Victoria cross .thank you Australia for the breaker. And dam the British for what you did to him. Joe
I know this is a long time after the petition for review was submitted and refused but it seems to me that what is at issue here is not whether soldiers took no prisoners but whether there was a nod and a wink given that they should take no prisoners.
I think the really big scandal is that the British high command – not unused to blundering – overlooked the mistreatment of the Boers when it suited them and, by not prosecuting every case of summary execution, tacitly condoned it. It was only when it looked like a scandal could be laid at Kitchener’s door that it became more expedient to find the absolute minimum number of scapegoats and, by killing them, or sentencing them to life behind bars (thus cunningly also staking a claim to be tempering justice with mercy), demonstrate that anyone who came forward with the truth of their own involvement would be similarly treated. I don’t think you have to look further than this for an explanation of why the court papers cannot be found.
It was a high stakes game but the dice were – and still are – loaded in favour of those at the top, who routinely got away with murder while receiving unwarranted admiration and deference. (Take the concentration camps, for example. Was that a big enough scandal? No. They faced that one down quite easily: no-one was “killed”; they merely “died”.)
Witton, in his own way, motivated by his own experience, speaks out against one small aspect of this. That is why this case has refused to go away. For Boer and Brit, man and woman, black and white, old and young, Witton’s testimony invites us to take stock of our own involvement whenever it suits us to turn a blind eye to the banality of evil.
That was how Hannah Arendt might have put it. John Donne put it another way:
Therefore, send not to know
for whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Any serious attempts to research this matter is seriously hampered by the absence of the transcripts of the Court Of Inquiry. One would think that any primary source documents that give as any hint of what was contained in those 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 as Jim Unkles has pointed out. St. Clair reviewed all the transcripts of the Court of Inquiry and wrote his opinion on this basis. This was the Legal Opinion of a highly trained military lawyer, not some casual observer. 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 St. Clair’s opinion was 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 a native commissioner and was not in military command. He was also charged with shooting a native but that charge was doomed to fail because even St. Clair concluded that “Captain Taylor may have acted in good faith”.
It is my understanding that the St. Clair document regarding Taylor is the primary component of the “new evidence” referred to by Jim Unkles because, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been previously published elsewhere. 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 historian Craig Wilcox’s aptly named website “Wilcox is History” his claim that “The supposed new evidence that’s prompted Australia’s attorney general Robert McClelland to ask the Brits to look yet again at the Morant case 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 – not surprising 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 shared 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
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?”
Page 286
“Taylor’s influence was untouched by the new regime, testifying to his forceful personality, his knowledge of local languages and conditions, and perhaps to backing from the intelligence department in Pretoria. He soon dominated Hunt as he had dominated Robertson.”
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?
Regards
Hello, thanks for your comments. Be certain that this case will be reviewed by an indpendent authority, either by inquiry or judicial appeal in London. The case is complex and involves allegations that these men were not tried and sentenced according to law of 1902. The ‘following’superior orders argument is only one aspect of the points of appeal. More news soon as the Aust Attroney General considers the advice of her Department
Regards
Definitely sucks to have been part of any colonial participation, augmenting British forces. Superior officers appear to brand servitude, regardless of rank at that time?What’s with opinions made by people, in reference to intelligence and empire vs. colonials! Your kidding, right?
Given the lack (conveniently) of no written orders to kill POWs disseminated to the troops, what’s the point in arguing on verbal orders which may or may not have been issued? Denial from higher CoC’s that it was even hinted at, lends credibility that this case embarrassed to many governments and military leadership to even acknowledge that crimes against humanity were being committed on all sides.
Kitchener and quite a few cronies, should have been relieved with disgrace; but then it would have been an admission…wouldn’t want that to happen on their watch and/or to stain the empire.
I still don’t get that detainees were sent to concentration camps w/high morality rates; guess this is only a footnote for historians… damn shame the suffering of people’s was condoned by respected and educated men?
The entire case was based on the testimony of one trooper, and there is good reason to suspect that Heese may in fact have been killed by a Boer sniper, since he was shot once, from the front, apparently while driving his wagon
the take no prisoners order was issued in the boar war. i found out canadians were doing the same as the soldiers in the B.V.C did to avenge Major ”Gat” Howard
regarding the visser case visser was cought wering british khaki belived to Captain Hunts. kitchener did state in his diary that any boars cought wering khaki were to be trialed on the spot then shot.
morant and hancock were cleared of the missonry killing becuse hancock clamed he was viseting 2 boar ladys to see how they were copeing with out there husbands who were at war. one a P.O.W and the other in potugese terrotory.
there was a simuler incedent in the vietnam war with an american Lieutenant Calley
followed orders from his superior officers to kill suspected Vietcong at Mai Lai
the British officers should have been accountable over this. the boars did mutilate captian hunt with knives and dumped his body for morant to see. morant sould be pardoned
Thanks Troy, you are correct and Colonial officers also signed contracts for service in which they had to swear allegiance to the King and obedience to orders of their superiors. I have a copy of the contract signed by Peter Handcock.
What is galling, is the orders given in this case only rebounded on Morant, Witton and Handcock. The British officers who gave the orders were not held accountable!
Cheers
Jim
Harry Morant did not give the orders he took em becuse there’s a rule in the Military manual witch states when a soldier gives you a direct order you must carry it out.
Andries, no need to apologise. The plea for pardons does not involve an appeal to a higher court at this time. What it does involve is a detailed review of the evidence (as it is), entertain submissions on the case for and against pardons, and the law of 1902.
A case for pardons can also include submissions for mercy, that in law the convictions were unsafe and should be over turned and the sentences were excessive and should not have resulted in a penalty of death. The question that concerns me is were these men tried according to law of 1902, were errors made in the trial process, were they denied their rights under Military law?
We will see what happens.
Regards
Andries, I trust the writings of Witton in his book, far more reliable than the ravings and self serving suppositions of historians with their onw agendas to ensure the status quo and the ‘Brtish version’ of evnts is not scrutinised and over turned.
I am well aware that many authors and historians have much to lose if the case for pardons is successful. Pardons will mean a re writing of history and a revelation of the mistakes made in British military and legal history (not the first time)!!
Let’s see what happen, but make no mistake, I am driven by the rule of law and due process in accordnace with the laws and p[rocedures of 1902, not modern standards of morality and jurisprudence.
Regards
Jim
Andries, the court entered a not guilty verdict on the Hesse matter, the case rest there, no amount of protest will alter this fact. If it helps you, there was doubt about the culpability of Morant and Handcock.
What is a concern is the suspicion that Kitchener did not think an acquittal on this charge would happen and his decision to ignore the recommendations for mercy were driven by his fear of a German backlash, a political decision, the Germans had to be appeased in the interests of a peace deal with the Boers. Te appeasment was achieved wothout inflicting severe penalities on Captains Robertson and Taylor or any other British NCOs
Andries, I am not convinced, some reports refer to a youth, in any case even if you are right, one has to consider Morant’s state of mind and the mitigating circumstances. A pardon is warranted for the reasons I have submitted to the British government, including a pardon solely base on the condonation principle which would abrogate all actions of the accused. See my writings on this principle on my web site.
Regards
Jim
Andries, the most reliable person as witness to the proceedings, is not you, me or Arthur Davey, it is the person who witnessed the trials, George Witton, perhaps the person who Kitchener who should have executed and removed the one perosn who could later set the record straight on what happened during the trials!
I for one, go with what Witton says in his book and not Arthur Davey, you, me or any one of the so called experts on the Morant matter!
Regards
Jim
I see the charge as I have seen before, I don’t see the details of a 12 year old boy, I see the charge of 3 Boers and Morant’s decision to follow the orders he had been given. I respectfully suggest you focus on those orders and the culpabilty of those who issued those orders and refrain from using the incident to avoid the recommendations for mercy made by the courst martial who unile you had the advantage of judging the culpability against the circumstances and the mitigating circumstances.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Hi Andries, please note:
1. Morant was never investigated and tried for the Van Staden killings;
2. there were many killing of Boers by soldiers and officers other than Morant and long before he arrived in the Speldonken;
3. I am not interested in debating Morant’s culpability for offences he was not tried for;
4. I join you in asking for objectivity in considering this matter by a duly constitued judicial inquiry so an independent authority can consider the process that was used to try Morant, Handcock and Witton;
5. I remain confident that British justice (in the present) will treat the case for pardons with respect and due process. This will ensure fairness for case for and againts pardons.
Hi Andries,
I am reluctant to hijack Jim’s blog but I feel I must reply.
The letter was not written to console Major Thomas but to dissuade him going further with his intention to publish a book. He says:
“Personally I do not think there would be much [sic] in writing what you term the true story of the Bushveldt Carbineers in face of the fact that the War Office may still hold Handcock’s confession”.
Witton obviously believed that such a confession existed although there is no mention of it in any of the available documents associated with the trials. I speculate that allegations of confessions may have been used as an interrogation tactic during the court of enquiry. This could account for the strange retort Witton claims Handcock made when he asked him about the “Heese business”: “Why, wasn’t you standing beside Morant when he asked me if I was game to follow the missionary and wipe him out”. It sounds to me like Handcock was accusing Witton of having made such an allegation to the enquiry – not confessing to a murder. They had such limited opportunity to interact that they may never have resolved this matter. Witton may have realised the irony of the remark at the time but as the years passed they may have taken on a different meaning as he became increasingly convinced that he was the “one and only one that suffered unjustly”. I repeat, this is speculation but if Handcock had really told Witton that he shot Heese then why didn’t Witton simply say so in his letter.
Thomas had recently been struck off the roll as a solicitor and had been made bankrupt and Witton may have been reluctant to renew his association with him because of that. Alternatively, Witton’s wife was dying of cancer at the time so he may not have wanted a matter to re-surface that was likely to cause her distress.
There is no way that the letter clearly shows that they were in fact guilty of murder as you claim. At no stage does Witton state that Handcock confessed to him that he shot Heese but rather he merely implies it with cleverly worded insinuations and use of the passive voice. For instance, he says that Handcock described Heese’s shooting to him and he may well have done so since he was the one who found the body.
The fact remains that they were tried for this murder and acquited. I don’t believe that Witton’s unsupported claim alone entitles anyone to challenge that verdict.
Regards
Richard
Hi,
Witton’s letter to Thomas in 1929 is held by the Mitchell Library in Sydney. It was sent there by a relative of Thomas (W.B. Thomas) who was dealing with his estate after his death.
W.B.Thomas attached a short note asking that the contents be kept confidential as Handcock’s widow was still alive. Someone in the Mitchell Library made the decision not to release it until 1970. It wasn’t kept secret at Witton’s request as suggested by Andries. I’ve sighted the originals of these documents and the appended library note “N.B. not to be issued until 1970”.
He certainly doesn’t discredit his book in the letter apart from casting doubt on the verdict in the Heese case. Those particular passages have been widely quoted in various texts but as Jim has pointed out elsewhere, that topic is irrelevant to his petition as they were tried and found not guilty of Heese’s murder.
Regards
Richard
Andries, I respect your views, but don’t necessarily agree, lert’s see what happens and then discuss it further. I do not mean to trivalise anything about this case and the affects that the British military action had on the lives of thousands of Boers and native South Africans. War is despicable and this was true in South Africam nay injustices occurred. I have focused on one such injustice and I garre with Peter, Lord Kitchener has much to answer for. Perhaps my work will contribute to the case against him and the case for pardoning Morant may focus attention on Kitchener’s flawed and brutal tactics in fighting the Boers. For decades the controversy over the trial and sentencing of Morant, Handcock and Witton has raged and the majority of Australians and many others from countyirs like USA and NZ expect a fair and impartial review of the circumstances. I am determined to see this happens!
Regards
Jim
Andries, take it easy, I haven’t attacked any one, including you and I resent being accused of not being objective and trivialising the shooting of 12 Boers.
I do expect a fair and impartial review of this case, nothing more and I expect this will happen. This case is more complex than you think, but I welcome your input.
Regards
Jim
Hi Andries, I would welcome your participation in any inquiry, if it does occur I expect there will be a stampede of many who will have agendas that they will want to present, more the merrier I say!! You are entitled to your views regardless of your profession, but I think you have seriously underestimated the ability of Morant and others, as colonial volunteers to challenge the orders of their British full time and experienced counterparts.
In any case, the courts martial recognised the mitigating factors and I will be focusing on this amongst many other factors before an inquiry. The bottom line, the men did not get fair trials, after 108 years of in action, a review is warranted. I wonder if those who oppose pardons can move on and understand the case for pardons, in my view, many historians appear incapable of understanding the case for review and justice.
Cheers
Jim
Cheers
Jim
Andries, yes the transcript appears to be permanently lost, but who knows what may turn up as the British government is reviewing the matter. However, we do have Witton’s book and quotes from the transcript, detailed notes from the Reuter corrospondence who attended the trial or had material ‘leaked’ to him by an ‘insider’ to the proceedings.
Yes, the orders may have been illegal, but why lay the responsibility at the Morant, Handcock and Witton. Instead, trace the orders to the creators, British officers who haven’t been held accountable!
To Morant’s credit he initially didn’t follow such orders, while others did lomng before Morant arrived in the Speldonken. He eventually followed ordess under what the court said was ‘extreme provocation’. He was deserving of mercy as was Handcock and Witton. These men lacked the knowledge and education of military law and had sworn to follow orders and be loyal to the King. Again, as stated by the Courts martial, these factors also amounted to mitigation and deserving of mercy, again a recommendation ignored by Kitchener.
An inquiry will settle issues such as the legality of the orders and the case for pardons.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Hi Andries, thanks for the comment. Your view about what Morant could have done does not stand up to scrutiny of the conditions that colonial volunteers served under. Note the following;
– Morant et al were not experienced and educated soldiers unlike their British full time counter parts. As noted by the recommendations for mecry, the men served the King loyally, but were ignorant of the the laws and customs of war;
– Morant et al had signed attestation forms pledging to serve the King loyally and obey all orders of their superiors;
– the volunteers were under strict obligation to obey orders, they did not understand the ‘finery’ of the laws of war;
– it would have been a courageous volunteer to stand up to Captains Hunt, Taylor and even Kit chener and debate the lawfulness of an order to take no prisoners when so many other units were following such orders;
-Morant had been reprimanded by Hunt for bringing in prisoners;
– Morant was not charged or investigated for shooting / raping women or children, he was not involved in the shooting of the 6 Boers, (that was of Taylor’s doing, including the 12 year old child);
– Morant’s obedience to the orders was known to his superiors, in particular LTCOL Hall, the area commander, in other words if Morant committeed an offence, his actions were condoned by his superiors, condonation in 1902 was a defence to criminal actions;
– the recommendations for mecry also noted the extreme provocation over the detah of his friend, Capt Hunt that inspired Morant to finally obey the orders he had been given. The provocation was sufficient to inspire the court members to recommend mercy
In conclusion, a full judicial inquiry will allow all matters to be reviewed by an independent authority, to decide disputed questions of fact and law and deliberate over the case for pardons. I for one will be thankful that the agendas of self serving historians and interest groups in Aust, UK and SA will be put to the test and the controversy put to rest.
Regards
Jim Unkles