Breaker Morant Blog

Christine Fyfe, MP in the Victorian Parliament, member for Evelyn has joined other MPs and Judicial figures in support of an Inquiry into the case  for pardons for Lieutenants Morant, Handcok and Witton.  Her support follows similar statements made by other MPs including Senator McGaurin, Alex Hawke, Tony Smith, and Greg Hunt.

Ms Fyfe has called on the British government to, ‘review the convictions and sentences against Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton through a proper inquiry in the spirit of fairness, justice and integrity on which both our great nations were founded.’
Sexual problems are quite common nowadays and some very usual reasons behind this embody fatigue, diabetes, kidney illness, enlarged prostate, monetary issues, job related stresses, anxiety and cialis price depression. Indeed, a new category of chemicals (ginsenosides) had to be applied to the scalp. cheapest cialis 20mg No matter how strong a couple may be, sexual intimacy is a very delicate matter viagra on line australia and it hurts a man’s ego easily when he is unable to satisfy his woman. Truth to be told, an array of psychiatric diseases, there has been sildenafil purchase an evidence for oxytocin dysfunction.
This call for an Inquiry by Ms Fyfe again demonstrates Australia’s concerns about the case and the need to review the case in a fair and transparent manner.

PATERSON, ANDREW BARTON (1864-1941), poet, solicitor, journalist, war correspondent and soldier, was born on 17 February 1864 at Narrambla near Orange, New South Wales.

Paterson was an Australian bush poet, journalist and author. He wrote many ballads and poems about Australian life, focusing particularly on the rural and outback areas, including the district around Binalong, New South Wales where he spent much of his childhood. Paterson’s more notable poems include “Waltzing Matilda“, “The Man from Snowy River” and “Clancy of the Overflow“.

In 1885, Paterson began submitting and having his poetry published in the Sydney edition of The Bulletin under the pseudonym of “The Banjo”, the name of a favourite horse. Paterson, like The Bulletin, was an ardent nationalist, and in 1889 published a pamphlet, Australia for the Australians which told of his disdain for cheap labour and his admiration of hard work and the nationalist spirit. In 1890, The Banjo wrote “The Man from Snowy River“, a poem which caught the heart of the nation, and in 1895 had a collection of his works published under that name. This book is the most sold collection of Australian Bush poetry and is still being reprinted today. Paterson also became a journalist, lawyer, jockey, soldier and a farmer.

Paterson became a war correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age during the Second Boer War, sailing for South Africa in October 1899. His graphic accounts of the relief of Kimberley, surrender of Bloemfontein (the first correspondent to ride in) and the capture of Pretoria attracted the attention of the press in Britain.^[3] He also was a correspondent during the Boxer Rebellion, where he met George “Chinese” Morrison and later wrote about his meeting.^[3] He was editor of the Sydney Evening News (1904-06) and of the Town and Country Journal (1907-08)

On 8 April 1903 he married Alice Emily Walker, of Tenterfield Station, in St Stephen’s Presbyterian Church, in Tenterfield, New South Wales.  One of his most famous poems is “Waltzing Matilda“, which was set to music and became one of Australia’s most famous songs. Others include “The Man from Snowy River“, which inspired a movie in 1982 and inspired a TV series in the 1990s, and “Clancy of the Overflow“, the tale of a Queensland drover.  Paterson’s poems mostly presented a highly romantic view of rural Australia. Paterson himself, like the majority of Australians, was city-based and was a practising lawyer. (refererence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjo_Paterson)

During his career, he became a close friend of ‘Breaker’ Morant and given his contact with Tenterfield, he apparently met Major James Thomas, the lawyer who defended Morant at his courts martial in 1902.

In an extroadinary letter to the Sydney Morning Herald dated 25 Feb 1939 http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17564428),  Banjo gave a a ‘lively’ description of ‘Breaker’ Morant and how they became acquainted.  What is intriguing is Banjo’s meeting with Major Thomas.  In a paragraoh entitled, the ‘Execution of Morant’, Banjo describes what he had been told by Thomas.  In particular, Banjo’s description of Thomas’ story said in part, ‘

“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 write to Australia, and asked for the case to be reopened so that 1 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 have believed that he had some authority for what he did and that I ought to have been able to convince the Court of it.’

Banjo’s story also claimed:

‘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 with him grieving over the 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.’

Comment

Banjo’s description of his discussion with Thomas confirmed:

• Thomas consistently maintained that his clients did not receive fair trials and an appeal against convictions and sentences should have been permitted in the interests of justice;
• Thomas blamed himself for failing to convince the courts martial in the defence of Morant;
• Thomas  suffered mental anguish for many years after the courts martial;
• Thomas carried with him documents about the trials and wanted Banjo to publish the documents.

Infertility is becoming http://seanamic.com/overview/our-companies/ discount levitra no rx an usual problem in today’s overstressed culture. cialis properien Read this and find out about these drugs, particularly the kinds of female libido booster and how it works. Not to mention that there viagra generico cialis are various types of erectile dysfunction drugs. Primary causes include poor flow, low testosterone, vascular harm and the maturing generic super cialis procedure.
From my own investigation of this matter and Banjo’s writings, it appears that Banjo either did not receive the papers from Thomas or if he did, they were not published.  The papers as described by Banjo could have included Thomas’ copy of the courts martial transcripts.  Another intriguing aspect of the Morant case.  Had Banjo received and published the court documents, the case for pardons could have relied on a record of all the evidence given at the trials, directions of the Judge Advocate etc

This communication betweeen Banjo and Thomas is a another fascinating aspect of Australia’s military history.

Jim Unkles

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

2^nd 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 24^th 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 27^th 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 2^nd 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.

[i] A.B. Paterson – Sydney Morning Herald 27th February, 1939

Copyright © James Unkles 2010

If a man afflicted purchase of levitra with these diseases smokes, he only increases their effects as well as creating intriguing sensations. Since its introduction in 1998, it has been one of viagra no rx http://pharma-bi.com/2010/03/tableau-public-interactive-obesity-data-on-the-web/ the best anti-ED solutions. The obsession of gadgets is really affecting our love life in the real world. viagra prescriptions online It can be bought online through a host of interactions which necessitate a greater pharma-bi.com cialis cost australia degree of understanding, situational awareness, open communication, and kindness.
Condonation is a misunderstood principle of Military law that can be traced back to the times of the Duke of Wellington and his role in the Peninsula wars of 1807 culminating in the battle of Waterloo in 1815.

In a despatch dated 11 April 1813, Lord Wellington stated: ‘No soldier should be put on duty having hanging over him the sentence of a court martial

Condonation consists of two aspects, any offence has been committed by Officer or soldier and that offence not punished or forgiven but advisedly overlooked, the person implicated being continued in his employment and secondly, the performance of a duty of honour and trust after knowledge of a military offence.

The application of condonation should have caused pardons to be granted to the accused at the time of the trials or after their convictions but before sentences had been carried out. Condonation arose from the call to service during a Boer attack on Pietersburg on 22 January 1902 and again on 31 January 1902. Condonation should also have been recognised as a ‘plea in bar’ due to the offences being condoned or pardoned by a competent military authority.

‘When any offence has been committed by Officer or soldier and that offence not punished or forgiven but advisedly overlooked, the person implicated being continued in his employment these circumstances are held to be a good plea of condonation and a bar to further proceeding’ [/i]C.Clode, Military Forces of the Crown 1869, p. 173

There is adequate evidence to support a plea of condonation at the trials of Morant, Handcock and Witton even though their counsel and the trial officers failed to raise the issue at the time. The passing of time since the trials ought not to be held against the convicted men. Nor should the fact that condonation was not considered and discussed by counsel, trial officers and legal personnel responsible for the review of the proceedings and advice to the confirming authority, Lord Kitchener.

If it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of condonation by a ‘competent authority’ there is sufficient evidence of condonation by way of the performance of a duty of honour by Morant, Handcock and Witton during the Boer attack at Pietersburg. As argued by Isaac Isaacs in the Witton petition, this action by the men should be recognised.

One authority has stated:‘The acquittal of Morant whilst certainly open on the evidence, is with hindsight best supported by the defence of condonation based on the call to service during the attack on Pietersburg.’ odd, Robert, Morant Harry Harbord (1864-1902) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol 10, 1891 – 1939, Lat-Ner, U.P. Melbourne 1986, p.5

• Condonation in military law applied at the time of the courts martial of Morant, Handcock and Witton;

• Condonation consists of two aspects, any offence has been committed by Officer or soldier and that offence not punished or forgiven but advisedly overlooked, the person implicated being continued in his employment and secondly, the performance of a duty of honour and trust after knowledge of a military offence;

• The proof of either aspect of condonation rests with the accused and should amount to a plea or grounds for a pardon;

• The principle of condonation received sanction in the 19th century from Lord Wellington;

• The 1899 Manual of Military Law Rules of Procedure 36 A (2) outlined the procedure for a plea in bar of trial on the grounds the offence had been condoned. Rules of 46 Procedure 36(A) (2) recognised the principle that an offence could be condoned “by the deliberate act of some superior authority” Rules of Procedure 34, Note A;

• ‘When any offence has been committed by Officer or soldier and that offence not punished or forgiven but advisedly overlooked, the person implicated being continued in his employment these circumstances are held to be a good plea of condonation and a bar to further proceeding’ C.Clode, Military Forces of the Crown 1869, p. 173;

• The offences committed by Morant, Handcock and Witton were condoned by Colonel Hall (competent authority);

• Morant, Handcock and Witton performed a duty of honour and trust after knowledge of their military offences. They were called to arms by their commanders while under arrest, confinement and trial. Once on 23 January 1901 when they assisted in the defence of Pietersburg during an attack by Boers. Again on 31 January 1901, Morant, Handcock and Witton were being transported by train enroute from Pretoria to Pietersburg and were called to bear arms when Boers were sighted on the rail line;

• In the courts martial condonation was not raised. This does not mean that a pardon on the basis of condonation cannot be exercised posthumously and granted by legislation or on proclamation by the British Crown

Manual of Military Law 1899 – Condonation

The trial procedure at the time of the Morant trial recognised the plea of condonation. The 1899 MML Rules of Procedure 36 A (2) outlined the procedure for a plea in bar of trial on the grounds the offence had been condoned. Rules of Procedure 36(A) (2) recognised the principle that an offence could be condoned or pardoned by a competent military authority ‘by the deliberate act of some superior authority’ Rules of Procedure 34, Note A gave directions on how a court would proceed with a special plea.

In the MML, Paragraph 53 also stated:

‘A plea in bar may also be offered by the prisoner at the time of his general plea of guilty or not guilty on the ground that the offence has been pardoned or condoned. The plea must be recorded at as well as the general plea of the prisoner and maybe supported by evidence. If the court find the plea not proven they will proceed with the trail, if they find it proven they will notify their finding to the confirming authority and adjourn unless there is some other charge against the prisoner not affected by the plea. In either case the finding requires confirmation’

Circumstances concerning the Performance of a Duty of Honour and Trust after knowledge of a Military Offence

The second ‘limb’ of condonation involves a pardon for the performance of duty after the commission of a military offence. This aspect has also received considerable comment from jurists and historians who have asserted that a pardon should be granted to Morant, Handcock and Witton in recognition of the service they rendered while under close arrest and trial.

Incident One. During the first court martial, the fort at Pietersburg was attacked by Boers led by General Beyers on two occasions, once on 22 January and again the next day. The first attack was successful for the Boers, however in the second attack the Boers were met with fierce resistance. Incredibly, Handcock, Witton and Morant were released from their cells and given firearms:

‘These two Officers climbed on to a block house roof and from an exposed position poured a hot fire into the Boers as they closed in. They fought fearlessly until the Bores were driven off in a north easterly direction. Beyers second attack had been a complete failure and some of his men had fallen a mere few yards from the block house.’

Renar, ( Bushman and Buccaneer, a Memoir of Harry Morant), noted that the officers were:

‘brought out of their cells to help fight for the lives and freedom of their gaolers, Morant was in command at his own prison, and right gallantry he held himself fighting like the brave man that he was, and having probably in his heart more hope than fear of death since an evil fate threatened him just then so sorely. The other too, Lenehan, Picton, Handcock and Witton showed out as men of courage.’

In addition to the actions by the accused, Handcock was credited by Witton with killing the Boer leader, Marthinus Pretorius during the attack on Pietersburg on 24 January 1901.

In Adelaide Observer, Saturday April 5th 1902, included under the heading Melbourne, March 27 Supplementary particulars concerning the execution at Pretoria:

‘Between the dates of the arrest in October and the court martial in February the men who were under arrest continued to take part in engagements which were being fought from day to day, and they fought in one pitched battle of considerable magnitude. This fight took place when Commandant Beyers, having captured the town of Pietersburg, released 150 Boer surrenderers and armed them against the British. The officers who were awaiting trial led the Bush Veldt Carbineers in action and defeated Commandant Beyers, killing five of the enemy and wounding ten’.

Witton’s version of the Boer attack was:

‘Morant joined Handcock as soon as the firing commenced and they climbed together on to the flat roof of the fort, in the most exposed position. Disregarding any cover, they fought as only such brave and fearless men can fight. Handcock in particular, in his cool and silent manner did splendid work, one of his bullets finding its billet in Marthinus Pretorious, Beyer’s fighting leader. Handcock was the only man armed with a Mauser rifle and when Pretorious was brought in, dangerously wounded, it was found he had been struck with a Mauser bullet’.

The participation of Morant, Hancock and Witton in repelling the attack on Pietersburg was not raised in mitigation at the trial. The reason for this is not known. Perhaps defence counsel and or the trial officers were unaware of condonation. Whatever the reason, it appears the members of the court were also called to duty as Witton commented; ‘perhaps they were slightly tired by their exertions in the early morning.’

Incident Two. During their confinement the accused were also involved in another incident when they were called to bear arms. On 31 January 1902, during their confinement for trial and enroute from Pretoria to Pietersburg their train halted near Warm Baths Station as Boers had been sighted on the rail line. This occurrence caused concern as Boers had been very successful in attacking and derailing trains, killing British soldiers and damaging rail property. Witton claimed:

‘A member of the court came to our little sheep-truck and for the second time during our trial we were ordered to stand to arms.’

Although no offensive action against the Boers occurred, the fact remains Morant, Handcock and Witton were ordered to bear arms and they did so even though they were in confinement.
Of significance with both incidents is that:

• Morant, Handcock and Witton were ordered by their commanders to bear arms;

• They did not resist the order;

• On both occasions they were under close confinement;

• They did not attempt to escape custody even though they were armed;

• In the defence of the attack at Pietersburg, the accused use firearms against the enemy, defended their fellow officers and men in a brave manner and at risk to their own safety;

• Handock’s actions ensured the wounding and capture of Boer leader, Marthinus Pretorious.

Witton’s Petition – Condonation

Witton raised the plea of condonation, (through his counsel, Sir Isaac Isaacs, KC MP, noted jurist, legislator and later Chief Justice and Governor General of Australia) in his petition to the King and this together with other matters in the petition influenced the decision to grant his release.

The rules of procedure stated, ‘if he offers a plea in bar the court shall record it as well as his general plea

The 1899 MML Rules of Procedure (cited) outlines the procedure for a plea in bar of trial on the grounds the offence had been condoned.

Sir Isaac Isaacs was obviously persuaded by the application of condonation in Witton’s case. His opinion was that a plea of condonation remained valid, even after a sentence had commenced. This of course happened in Witton’s case as he commenced penal servitude before his petition had been lodged with the Crown.

At paragraph 12 of the Witton petiton for clemency, Isaacs urged the Crown to recognise an act of condonation on account of Witton’s bravery during an attack by Boers at Pietersburg.

In Isaac Isaacs’ 1902 legal opinion about Witton, he concluded that the incident at Pietersburg warranted the application of condondation. In his reasoning, Isaacs quoted from the Duke of Wellington’s edict on condonation, Article 450 of the King’s Regulations and concluded that Witton had been called to arms due the emergency that arose during the attack on Pietersburg.

Precedent – Condonation

At the time of the Morant trials there was a precedent for a plea of condonation. Pakenham gives an example of condonation at the Siege of Mafeking. An artillery officer named Murchison was tried and sentenced to death by Colonel R. S. Baden – Powell for the murder of the Daily Chronicle correspondent, named Parslow, ‘but later was released because of gallant services in the siege.’

The Murchison case is precedent for the principle that after a sentence has been passed and confirmed, any act by a condemned man involving the performance of a duty of honour and trust may convey a pardon. There appears to be no impediment to a plea of condonation after sentences have been confirmed or carried out. In the Murchison case, the trial and sentencing was complete when a duty of honour and trust occurred and condonation granted. In the Morant affair, the accused completed a duty of honour and trust after the charges of murder had been laid and before the first court martial concluded (in the defence of Pietersburg when attacked by Boers). In addition, a duty of honour and trust was committed by Morant in the capture of Boer commander Kelly in September 1901 after offences had been committed with Hall’s knowledge but before the accused were removed from duty and charges had been laid.
There is sufficient evidence to the requisite standard that the accused were condoned by a competent authority (Hall) and rendered loyal service when called to bear arms on two occasions while under arrest, confinement and trial.

Analysis of Isaac Isaacs, KC, MP

In support of the petitions lodged by the author, two significant documents were referred to, including legal opinion by Isaac Isaacs, counsel who acted on behalf of Lieutenant Witton and a petition for a pardon that was sent to the British Crown in 1902.

These two documents are very persuasive of the following issues:

• Condonation;

• Defence of superior orders;

• Sentences imposed on the accused and

• Mitigation circumstances with respect to Lieutenant Witton.

A paper dated 3 January 2010 written by the author is persuasive of the issues discussed herein.

A final word

Two notable lawyers have commented on the convictions of the Morant, Handcock and Witton and the principle of condonation. Their views are persuasive.

Charles Francis, QC (deceased).

‘While expressing no views on the facts that gave rise to the court martial of Breaker Morant and Peter Handcock (“Morant deserves a break,” February 6), their conviction was clearly wrong in law. Early in the 19th century the Duke of Wellington propounded the military legal principle of condonation. No soldier facing court martial could be required to perform military duties until his trial ended. If he were placed on military duties, that was a condonation of any offence previously committed and thereafter he could not be tried for it. During the process of Morant and Handcock’s trial, the Boers attacked the unit where they were imprisoned. They were temporarily released to fight valiantly in a successful defence action. Consequently, when the trial resumed, the court had an express duty immediately to discharge them, as their offence, if any, had been condoned. Kitchener would well have known their conviction was wrongful. Because of these executions, the Australian Government in the first days of World War I made Australian participation conditional upon no British court martial having the right to execute an Australian. Charles Francis is a QC and a Herald Sun reader’

Helen Styles, lecturer in International Communication at Macquarie University and member of the Red Cross Committee on International Humanitarian law summarises the view of the legal proceedings and condonation and concluded the convictions were unsafe:

‘I agree strongly with the argument that Morant, Handcock and Winton deserve to have the conviction quashed as unsound on technical grounds. They deserve to be pardoned on the basis of military practice and opinion juris, in accordance with Wellington’s belief that the performance of a duty of honour and trust after knowledge of a military offence ought to convey a pardon’

Conclusions

There is adequate evidence to support a plea of condonation at the trials of Morant, Handcock and Witton even though their counsel and the trial officers failed to raise the issue at the time. The passing of time since the trials ought not to be held against the convicted men. Nor should the fact that condonation was not considered and discussed by counsel, trial officers and legal personnel responsible for the review of the proceedings and advice to the confirming authority, Lord Kitchener. An opinion stated:

‘The acquittal of Morant whilst certainly open on the evidence, is with hindsight best supported by the defence of condonation based on the call to service during the attack on Pietersburg.’

If it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of condonation by a ‘competent authority’ there is sufficient evidence of condonation by way of the performance of a duty of honour by Morant, Handcock and Witton during the Boer attack at Pietersburg. As argued by Isaac Isaacs in the Witton petition, this action by the men should be recognised.

The granting of a pardon does have precedence. If it is accepted that Morant, Handcock and Witton should be pardoned, based on the application of condonation or for any other reason, then a legislative solution could be used as in the case of the pardoning of World War 1 soldiers for military offences committed during times of war. During the war, over 300 soldiers were executed by the British for offences such as desertion and mutiny. Executed soldiers included 5 from New Zealand.

In the New Zealand case, the Pardon for Soldiers the Great War Act 2000 achieved a just outcome for the descendants of the executed soldiers. Legislation was also used in Canada, UK and Ireland to pardon soldiers executed. Legislation is an appropriate form of achieving pardons.

Regards

Jim Unkles

Copyright © James Unkles 2010

Sir FRANK IGNATIUS FOX (1874-1960), journalist and Imperialist lived and worked in Australia (1874-1960) He led a life as a distinguished journalist and author, writer for the Bulletin, Morning Post, The Times, the Daily Mail and ‘a swarm of other papers’.  He was a talented political agitator and commentator. In 1902, as ‘Frank Renar’, he published Bushman and Buccaneer, a Memoir of Harry Morant. His details are contained in Australian Dictionary of Biography on line edition, at adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A080585b.htm

The article, Bushman and Buccaneer, A Memoir of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant was published in 1902. It was not a learned review of the case against Morant on charges of murdering Boer prisoners, but rather a ‘romantic’ publishing and review of Morant’s poetry, a history of Morant’s life in Australia and his adventures in South Africa.

In Fox’s words as author’s foreward he stated in part, ‘I purpose to set forth the true facts without word of comment. Some I trow, will give to Harry Morant a shudder of pity as to a brave man who died mistakenly avenging his fried and serving his country. It will not be my task to sit in judgement, but to give in all faithfulness the sorry history of the man withholding nothing of fact, venturing nothing of censure or apology.’One may ask, why am I writing about this article by Renar? Aside from learning something of Morant’s life and poetry, the significance of the article is as follows:

– It was published in 1902, shortly after Morant’s death, making it contemporaneous to the circumstances surrounding Morant’s arrest and trial;
– Some of Morant’s letters are published and these give an insight into Morant’s state of mind, his belief in his loyal service to the Crown and his decison to follow the orders that had been given to him by his superiors, including Captain Hunt who Morant believed had been tortured and killed by Boers;
Morant’s performance of duty on 22 September 1901 in capturing Boer Commander, Cornet, Tom Kelly without the loss of life on the British or Boer sides.  This action later earned Morant praise from his superiors, in particular Area Commander Colonel Hall;
Several men sildenafil canada online today suffer from certain sexual problems such as erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Smoking The chance of smoking for your erectile dysfunction which will generic viagra you can try this out really make a difference in these people’s lives. It is unnecessary to frankkrauseautomotive.com purchase cialis on line say that it can have a damaging impact. Men feel embarrassed when they online levitra get to see themselves as undesirable. – Renar reproduces material from the courts martial, including recommendations for mercy and the desperate steps taken by Morant and his counsel, Major Thomas to try and lodge a plea for mercy with the King;
– The article reproduced the character evidence given by Major Lenehan, the CO of the Bushveldt Carbineers, about Morant. On pages 43 of the article, Lenehan describes the loyal and professional service that Morant provided to the Crown and his general reputation;
On page 42, the article reproduces the letter written by Major Thomas, defence counsel for Morant. The letter gives insight into the circumstances of the courts martial and the unjust manner (according to Thomas) that the men were treated and denied an appeal to the King;
– Renar comments on the secrecy of the trials , the carrying out of sentences and the reactions in Australia when the circusmtances were became known. This account highlights the deviousness of the decision to keep the arrest, trial and sentencing of Morant, Handcock and Witton from the Australian government and its people;

Conclusion

Noting that the courts martial transcripts have not been discovered, we must be grateful that writings such as Renar’s and others, including the book by George Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire exist.
The Renar article adds to our understanding of the service provided to the British Crown by volunteers like Morant and how he was treated after being arrested. Ultimately, Renar’s article reveals the charater of Morant, an educated, loyal and talented man, who if guilty of any infraction of military law did not deserve the sentence of death while being denied the support of his family, the Australian government and right of appeal to the King.

Tony Smith, MP in the Australian Parliament, member for Casey has been an enthusiastic supporter for pardons for Lieutenants Morant, Handcok and Witton.  His support follows similar staements made by other MPs including Senator McGaurin, Alex Hawke, MP and Greg Hunt, MP

Tony’s web site, http://www.tonysmithmp.com/ contains a report from the local newspaper, the Mount Evelyn Mail contains Tony’s views about the case for pardons, the article is produced below:

Cervical fusion is fusing one vertebra to another in order to find right parts you need. cialis generic overnight What are the Safety Precautions when taking Kamagra tablets, which is why cialis discount price pamelaannschoolofdance.com you should consult with your doctor if you have heart, liver or kidney disease, surgery, injury in the brain or pelvic zones and psychological disorder, amongst others. Do keep all the points in mind and its side effects so, you should know that this product has zero side effects or there are no negative effects available in cialis uk Find Out More. The nitric oxide contained by corpus cavernosum of the cheap levitra pamelaannschoolofdance.com genital organ such as heart problem, smoking etc. 2.

Tony Smith’s call for pardons has also been supported by other politicians, including Alex Hawke, MP, Greg Hunt, MP and Senator Julian McGaurin, former Deputy PM, Tim Fischer, Senator Forshaw and David Hawker, MP.