After returning to Australia from South Africa, Major J.F. Thomas, who had represented Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton at the courts martial lived out his life in Tenterfield as a country solicitor and newspaper proprietor. He assisted Witton to write his book, Scapegoats of the Empire and unsuccessfully lobbied the NSW Government to inquire into the Courts Martial and for financial assistance for Handcock’s children. He gradually isolated himself from the community that once hailed him a hero. He sold the Tenterfield Star newspaper he had owned for 16 years and his legal practice. He also lost his licence to practise as a solicitor and served 12 months imprisonment for contempt of court orders. His time in Long Bay was described by a fellow solicitor as:
‘He continued to conduct his practice in jail and work seemed to continue to arrive from Tenterfield and he seemed to also to be the jail solicitor, representing some other prisoners.’
Thomas died alone, a lonely and somewhat embittered man on Armistice Day (11 November) 1942 from nephritis and malnutrition at his small property at Boonoo Boonoo near Tenterfield. Perhaps the Morant trials and his experience of British ‘justice’ had a profound affect on his mental health.
In one of the few books published by Witton that has survived to this day, Thomas made an inscription on the inside cover, it reads:
‘This book only gives a superficial statement of the facts, much that Lieut Witton probably did not know is not given, The true story of the Bushveldt Carbineers has never been written. These officers were truly ‘scapegoats’ shot or imprisoned not so much for their own sins but for those of the system of militarism in which they were involved and which was responsible for the drastic instructions secretly issued from high places to irregular corps against the indomitable Boers. In the later European war Regular Army Officers were not given the opportunity to season themselves by victimising Colonial Officers, as was the case in the South African war.’
This was an emotional and extraodinary claim by Major Thomas. Critics would argue that it amounts to no more than a self serving and perhaps bitter complaint about the British system of justice. It certainly does not contain any material that could be construed as probative evidence that would assist an inquiry to decide questions of fact that are in dispute, such as the issuing of orders to shoot prisoners.
Nevertheless, when compared to other writings of Major Thomas (to Australia shortly after the sentences took place), the inscription is consistent with his statements and belief that Morant, Handcock and Witton were ‘scapegoats’ for a flawed policy of war and those who were really responsible (British regular Officers) escaped liability for their actions.
I place great credibility on Major Thomas’ writings. It must be appreciated that he sat through the trials, ‘sifted’ through evidence, examined witnesses and had first hand exposure to the evidence for and against his clients. His writings are one of the few ‘eye’ witness accounts that have survived to this day and as such are important. My view is that his writings rate highly alongside those of Witton, Thomas’ client who survived to tell his story of what he witnessed during the investigation, trials and sentencing processes.
The inscription by Major Thomas is an important piece in the puzzle of what actually happened in South Africa in 1902. Major Thomas’ writings are to be celebrated and should be respected as those of an officer and lawyer who performed his duties in most difficult circumstances and under extraordinary pressure.
Major Thomas also pleaded the innocence of his clients (Morant, Handcock and Witton) in his writings to newspapers and to individuals, including politicians. The following extracts demonstrate his unwavering claims that his clients were innocent, did not receive trials and the sentences were excessive. I have highlighted Thomas’ writings, since he is one of the few individuals who was at the courts martial and who can claim to have an intimate understanding of the evidence that was given at the trials and the claims made by his clients.
For the record, I have reproduced Thomas’ writings to assist in assessing the case for posthumous pardons. The fine thread that runs through Thomas’ writings between 1902 and his death in 1942, is the consistent plea that his clients were denied justice.
The writings are as follows:
No 1
Letter from the Prisoners Counsel
2nd March 1902
Dear Sir,
I have the painful duty, though I am glad it is not so painful as it might have been, of giving you some particulars of the conviction (for instigating to murder) of your son. Lieutenant George R Witton late of the Bushveldt Carbineers. I do not know whether he has told you that he, with other officers of that corps, has been under arrest since 24th October last, charged with various offences, principally instigation to murder certain Boers. For being concerned in these affairs he has been sentenced to penal servitude for life whilst two of his brother officers have been shot.
Now, I may say at once that I believe when the facts become known to your Government, it will not be long before you son is released. But in any case I anticipate he will be kept a prisoner till the war is over, or possibly till the King’s Coronation. But of course this is only my surmise.
I acted as counsel for your son and other officers at the trial, and consequently all the facts and all the evidence is known to me, and the evidence is all in my possession. I am seriously dissatisfied wit the severe punishment meted out, which has astounded, I think every unbiased person. I cannot say much here. But to one at least of the officers who has been shot (a New South Wales man) I owe a sacred duty and that is to let Australia know all the circumstances. Lieutenants Morant and Handcock (who were shot here on the 27th uli) were convicted, together with your son by a court martial consisting of Imperial Officers, of ordering their men to murder (as the charges alleges) several Boers who had been captured under the following circumstances, briefly stated: The evidence distinctly shows that their senior officer, Captain Hunt, formerly a Hussar officer, gave his junior officers and his sergeants orders that (after a train wrecking episode, in which an officer and a number of men were killed, near Pietersburg) they were to “take no prisoners.” Hunt was soon afterwards killed himself, and Lieutenant Morant, his personal friend for years- succeeded to command the detachment. Hunts body was badly mutilated by the Boers. Morant swore vengeance, and swore to carry out Hunt’s orders. He pursued the party of Boers that had done this to Hunt and captured one that was hit through the heel and had portion of Hunt’s clothing in his possession. It was decided to hold a “drum head” Court Martial, of which your son was made a member, and the Boer was found guilty of wearing khaki and of being implicated in the barbarities to Hunt, and was shot by firing party. Your son said “I will be guided by my Superior officers.” And that is all the part he took in the affair, but subsequently eight Boers who had been captured in some outlying place, and who were being sent in under a sergeant, were met on route by Morant, Handcock and your son, and under Morant’s orders they were all shot for being train wreckers, bandits and concerned in Hunt’s maltreatment. Your son was present, and a Boer who rushed at him as shot by him. It was considered by the Court Martial that these executions were illegal, and that all the officers present were equally to blame for the shooting of these Boers by their men. The defence maintained that under the customs of war the shooting of these Boers was allowable as they were merely roving bands of marauders. It was proved that in other cases exactly the same procedure was adopted and approved of by other officers. Consequently you will see from a soldiers point of view at any rate the crime brought in was not so dreadful as might appear- for technically it was a crime. Your son, too, took a very minor part, and I cannot conceive that one so young in years (and an Officer) will ever be allowed to carry out anything like the life long term of penal servitude. I only regret that poor Morant and Handcock did not receive the same sentence: but, poor fellows, they were shot at about eighteen hours notice. Over Handcock’s death I have suffered deepest grief. It may be that before long I shall be back in Australia when I shall make it my business to let the Government know the position. Your son has been sent a prisoner to England, and I think it would be wise to defer any active steps concerning him till the Australian Commonwealth Government is in possession of the facts. As counsel for your son, and the other officers, I should like to see that all the facts- from the prisoners point of view-are fairly brought forward. You might see the Premier of Victoria and show him this letter. As regards your family, though the occurrence cannot but be painful and cause you all much anxiety, I think that I can safely assure you when everything is known you will not think the disgrace amounts to much or anything. War is war and rough things have to be done. Only yesterday news came in of horrible barbarities on the part of the Boers towards some of our colonials. I dsay they deserve all (the Boers) get, and with less nonsense and sentiment the war would be over. I have to send you a few little things of your son’s by and bye-
Yours truly
J.F. Thomas, Army Post Office, Pretoria 2nd March, 1902
No 2
Major Thomas write a letter to the Premier of WA. The letter was dated 2 May 1902 and asked the Premier to forward to the Perth newspaper, a letter Thoams had written about the trials of Morant, Handcock and Witton. The Premier responded to Thoams and declined to have his letter forwarded to the newspaper for publishing because it related to Army matters. However, the Premier offered to forward the letter to the PM of Australia for consideration. It was eventually sent to the Acting Minister of State for Defence.
- In the letter, Thomas made comments including that his clients had followed orders not to take prisoners, their actions were sanctioned under reprisals against a ruthless enemy, the reprisals were legal and justifiable, the British press had attributed horrors and enormities to the BVC and his clients that had not occurred, the trial and sentencing of his clients had occurred without any reference by the British to the Australian government.
No 3
In a meeting with Perry John Alfred Ironside, an old school friend (Kings school, Sydney, 1876-79), Thomas gave a candid explanation of his experiences in South Africa. According to Ironside, Thomas claimed that the execution of Morant and Handcock was a mistake and Lord Kitchener had attempted to silence the writings of a journalist who had attended the trial of Morant.
No 4
- Banjo Paterson was a friend of Breaker Morant, noting their mutual appreciation of poetry. At some point Paterson must have met Major Thomas as in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in 1939, Paterson wrote: [i]
‘I happened to know all that was to be known about Morant’s trial and execution, for the lawyer who defended him, one J.F. Thomas, of Tenterfield, asked me to publish all the papers – evidence, cablegrams, decision, appeal etc. a bulky bundle which he carried about him, grieving over them matter till it seriously affected his mind. He blamed himself, in a measure, for the death of Morant, but I could not see that he had failed to do the best he could with a very unpleasant business. “Morant was sentenced to death,’ Thomas said, ‘but I never believed the execution would be carried out. When I found that the thing was serious I pulled every string I could; got permission to wire Australia, and asked for the case to be reopened so that I might put in a proper defence. It was of no use. Morant had to go. He died game. But I wake up in the night now, feeling that Morant must have believed that he had some authority for what he did and I ought to have been able to convince the Court of it.’
The issue arises when sexual arousal convey signals from the brain to receive blood for an delivery overnight viagra erection. Moreover, opting to drink more increases the risk of developing addiction and deteriorates the existing symptoms http://www.wouroud.com/quality.php viagra australia online of depression. Along levitra 20 mg with a surrogacy can come in distinctive fashions. ACE inhibitors may http://www.wouroud.com/contact.php order generic cialis also be connected with birth defects.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
Sir, – In an article under the above headings in last Saturday’s issue of the “Herald,” the following is stated about the “rebel,” Maritz: “He died in the same yard and in the same way as did the Australian outlaw, Captain Harry Morant, in the Boer War, 14 years before.” This assertion contains three mis-statements in as many words.
I am, etc.
Morant was not an Australian, he was an Englishman, who came to this country for “colonial experience.” He knocked about on stations breaking-in horses (hence his nom-de-plume of “The Breaker,” under which he published verse). At the time of the Boer War he enlisted, in the ranks, in an Australian regiment, and when this was disbanded he joined the Irregular Corps (not raised in his country, but by Lord Kitchener in South Africa, for guerrilla warfare purposes), called the “Bush Velt Carbineers,” in which he obtained a commission as a lieutenant (he was never a “captain.”) The late Major Lenehan was placed in command of the regiment, but the detachment with which Morant served was taken out of the command of Major Lenehan and placed under that of a certain “Captain” Taylor, under special order of Lord Kitchener, and for service in the far north of the Transvaal. There Morant distinguished himself, but was afterwards arrested, and, with others, court-martialled, for “shooting Boer prisoners.” Morant at the trials declared that he received those orders from his friend and superior officer. Captain Hunt, who was also an Englishman, and commissioned for special service with Captain Taylor, and who had been killed by the Boers under rather tragic circumstances. Morant averred that until Captain Hunt was thus killed, he (Morant) refused to carry out those “no prisoners” orders, but that after Hunt’s death he decided that he would carry them out. In the circumstances, the court strongly recommended Morant and all the accused to mercy, but Lord Kitchener ordered him and another to be shot at 24 hours’ notice. Morant, however, was neither an “outlaw” nor a “rebel” (like Maritz). Why these loose statements are made 20 years after Morant was placed in his grave (in Pretoria cemetery) it is difficult to understand. The true story of the Bush Velt Carbineers has never been told, but perhaps some day it will be.
A remarkable fact in connection with those courts martial is this: Before Capt. Hunt, who was sent from Pretoria with reinforcements for Captain Taylor’s detachment, certain Boer prisoners wore shot, but with those Morant had nothing whatever to do, and was not present – in fact if I remember rightly, he went to join Taylor along with Hunt. Taylor was in supreme command of this special detachment, both before and after the arrival of Hunt and Morant, and, though a charge was preferred against him in connection with these previous shootings, there was no conviction. Morant, the junior officer, and another, junior to Morant, were shot, whilst Taylor was acquitted.
As I defended all the accused, I, perhaps, know more about the facts than anyone else.
J. F. THOMAS.
First published in The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 June 1923
Comment
This letter by Thomas is typical of the views he expressed about the case. What is interesting, is that from the days following the courts martial and execution of Morant and Handcock to his final days before his death in near Tenterfield in 1942, Thomas was consistent in his protestations about how his clients had been treated.
Hopefully, his words, ‘The true story of the Bush Velt Carbineers has never been told, but perhaps some day it will be’, will finally be told and his hopes of acquittal and pardons for his clients will become a reality. My motivation in petitioning the British Crown has been about realising Major Thomas’ relentless protest of his clients’ innocence.
[i] A.B. Paterson – Sydney Morning Herald 27th February, 1939
Copyright © James Unkles 2010
Ian, thanks for the contribution. I am not ‘pommie bashing’ but believe there is sufficient doubt in the investigation, trials and sentencing of these men to justicfy a judicial inquiry. After 108 years, there is a compelling case for review. Let the issues/evidence be reviewed, the matter adjudicated on and finally put to rest.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Andries, the names of the 3 Boers was not disclosed in the charge sheet. I have previously quoted Witton from his book about this incident. I don’t say that there were not victims in the war. I believe Morant, Handcock and Witton were victim, My case is focused on the mal administration of courts martial law and procedure of 1902. I understand your case. Join me and lobby for an Inquiry.
Regards
Andries, I suggest you have a read the comments made by people who have signed the on line petition attached to the web site. It will give you some balance about what many people believe was a gross miscarriage of justice by the British military. You talk about ‘fair’ fight, these people talk about fair dealings in trial and sentencing.
Again regarding the Van Steden matter, I don’t accept your version that Chris was 12 or that the Van Steden family were innccent civilians. Witton, am eye wtiness has a different version. Again, an inquriy may assist in settling the matter. I encourage your call for an Inquiry.
Regards
Jim
Andries, Thomas wrote a number of letters in which he protested the innocence of the three Australians, he showed no favourites as you seem to suggest. There is not a shred of evidence that suggests he was convinced that Morant was guilty as charged.
My latest blog and forum entries summarise what Thomas thought of the culpability of senior British officers as opposed to three lower ranked colonial officers. I suggest you give this more careful thought. You say Morant showed arrogance, I disagree, he honestly gave his version of events and maintained, until he was shot (as did Handcock) that he obeyed orders and did his duty. The courts martial agreed in the sense that the recommendations of mercy acknowledged, honourable duty, service to the Crown and extreme provocation From beginning to end, Morant admitted his actions, pleaded a consistent defence, but denied justice when he tried to exercise his right of appeal. That’s what I am focused on, I respect that you are not.
The prosecution had nearly 3 months to prepare their case and ’round up’ and prepare witnesses. In a scandalous breach of the Manual of Mil Law provisions, Thomas was called into the case one, one day, one day before the first trial began. Talk about loading up the defence case in favour of the prosecution. This aspect is also an important part of the case for pardons, by the law of 1902, the lack of time and resources to prepare the defence case was a gross denial of justice. Finally, the prosecutor did have legal training, maybe not much as he tried to relinquish his duty, but he certainly had more time and resources than Thomas, a fair ‘fight’? I think not!
Regards
Jim