1708 Jan de Thuilot
Jan de Thuilot, a Huguenot immigrant, was found guilty of killing two of his labourers, a slave named Andries and a Khoi named Caffer. They died after severe whippings inflicted by De Thuilot because he suspected them of stealing his keys. This was despite the advice of a visiting farmer, that errant slaves should be reported to the authorities rather than being punished severely by their owner: in the early eighteenth century, Company authority was only slowly extending into the world of masters and their slaves.1
De Thuilot’s letter to the court (written in French) tried to shift the blame for the deaths onto a neighbour who had assisted him in the punishment, but he clearly realised his guilt and fled before he could be arrested. The Council of Justice tried him in absentia,2 and sentenced him to be shot.3
This was not the first time a Cape burgher had been sentenced to death for murdering a slave, but it was the last time such a sentence was passed in the VOC period.4 The fact that this was a double murder, carried out mainly by De Thuilot himself (rather than the result of a whipping ordered by him, but administered by someone else) and including a (nominally) free Khoi servant as victim, may explain its severity. In any event, De Thuilot was not captured and the execution was never carried out.5
Footnotes
-
As is also revealed in the career of De Thuilot’s contemporary Peter Becker, who sadistically tortured a woman slave of his to death, in spite of Company law to the contrary (Biewenga 1999: 114-15). Theoretically owners were only allowed ‘domestic correction’ of their slaves (Kaapse Plakkaatboek I: 36-7), and needed to send slaves for harsher punishment to the judicial authorities, for which service they had to pay. However, owners often took the law into their own hands, despite Company attempts to prevent the maltreatment of slaves (see 1729 Jan Botma, n. 4 and 1766 Nicolaas Heijns, n. 6). ↩
-
For this procedure, see 1788 David Malan Davidsz, n. 15. ↩
-
For the process of this case between its first appearance in the Council of Justice on 19 January 1708 and the passing of the death sentence on 5 July 1708, see CJ 4, ff. 4, 6, 7v, 9v, 12, 44 (reporting De Thuilot’s desertion), 45r-v (payment of amende fine) and 48 (death sentence). The documentation also includes the eijsch, the letter of Jan de Thuilot in French, with the Dutch translation reproduced here, and the examination of Christiaan Uijker, CJ 312, documents 27-31. Additional information about this case, based on the Stellenbosch criminal records, is given in Biewenga 1999: 113-14. The case, and the background to it, is discussed by Franken 1978: 128-34, who also includes a transcription and linguistic analysis of De Thuilot’s original French letter. ↩
-
Jan van As was executed (by shooting) in 1688 for stock theft and murder of a slave boy. Upham (1997-9) suggests that the death sentence was passed because of Jan’s mestizo origins and because of the severity with which the authorities regarded stock theft. The three other burghers who killed slaves in the seventeenth century were given sentences ranging from fines to banishment (De Wet 1981: 160-61; Upham 1997: 7-8). For similar examples in the eighteenth century, see 1729 Jan Botma and 1749 Jan Lategaan. The next such case, that of Willem Gebhardt, only took place in 1824 (Cairns 1984). ↩
-
De Thuilot was never found and the following year his estate was sequestrated and his farm sold (Franken 1978: 134). De Kock (1950: 190-91) suggests that he might have fled on one of the Company ships. ↩
CJ 312 Criminele Process Stukken, 1708, document 28.
Since, some time ago, the provisional landdrost has demonstrated to us how, during the month of last December, the farmer Jan de Thuilot, living in the Wagemaakers Valeij in the district of Drakenstein, had made himself guilty in his own house of two abominable homicides to one of his slaves, Andries, and to a Hottentot working for him, named Caffer. The landdrost was then, at his own request and because of his [De Thuilot’s] flight, granted the right to act in anticipation,1 together with a first, second and third writ of summons, as well as a fourth mandate in superabundance,2 with a premium of twenty-five rixdollars for whoever may apprehend him and deliver him into the hands of justice, besides a penal prohibition against all who support, help to hide or may provide him with any provisions; that if he did not appear on the day advertised but still remained hidden, then these offences will not only be considered to be admitted, in accordance with law, but that he, Jan de Thuilot, would also be considered, being convinced and persuaded of it, the author and perpetrator of the same. So the said landdrost then brought his action, as well as the evidence which supported it, from which the honourable Council of Justice determined it to be clear and evident, as also to have appeared sufficiently:
That when, on the fourth of the said month, the defaulter’s slaves and Hottentots got home from the fields where they had been reaping wheat, he, in an evil temper, on the suspicion that they had taken his keys and hid them, called the said slave Andries and the Hottentot Caffer, tied them, pulled them up by the hands to a beam and thrashed them wretchedly with a halter and continued so long with this until he became tired. That the fugitive then persuaded with threats one Christiaan Uijker, who confessed to have done this, to also give these wretched sufferers about three strokes each. That he, Jan du Thuilot, in addition then tried to trample or kick these people with his foot, but that he was prevented and dissuaded from this by Barent Pietersz. Blom, alias Skinny Barent, who had come by there during this, and who advised him, the delinquent, to untie them, to take them to Stellenbosch, to charge them and to have them punished there according to merit by the officer. That, on their wretched lamentations and the serious exhortations of the aforementioned Skinny Barent, the defaulter did untie and free the sufferers, but, when the said Barent again departed from there, Jan de Thuilot came to the barbaric decision to tie the feet of these two sufferers, so pitifully thrashed, and to hang them from the same beam with their heads downwards and yet again beat them with the same halter over their bodies, letting them hang in this position for about an hour, after which he set them free and then trampled and kicked the Hottentot Caffer in such a way that he presently gave up the ghost; while some days thereafter, the slave too – to all appearences because of this evil chastisement, kicking or trampling – was to die, whereupon he immediately went from his house, took flight and, because of his non-appearance, made himself guilty of these hideous deeds of murder, and disdained justice.
All of which are the most abominable capital crimes, moreover executed in such a cruel barbaric fashion that it fills one with horror, and are punishable as severely as possible in a well-appointed honour- and peace-loving government, where nothing but love, peace and harmony were planted and are continued, and moreover where justice is properly maintained for the restraint and suppression of wanton crimes, excessive dissoluteness and every other evil consequence.
Thus it is, that the honourable Council of Justice, serving today, having seen and read the arraignment, with the other papers and documents which the provisional landdrost Sieur Samuel Martini de Mours has produced in court as justification for his case, as well as the conclusie he had drawn up and delivered, by reason of his office, against the defendant, defaulter and fugitive, Jan de Thuilot, further having pondered and noted with carefully considered counsel everything which their honours have to take into account in this, practising justice in the name and on behalf of the high and mighty Lords States General of the free United Netherlands and, having judged the defaulter Jan du Thuilot, is sentencing him with this: that when he will have come into the hands of justice here, to be shot with an arquebus3 so that death will follow, with confiscation of all his goods with, after the costs and expenditure of justice had been deducted, the one half for the eijschereijscherLiterally ‘claimant’ or ‘petitioner.’ The prosecutor who drew up and delivered the crimineelen eijsch ende conclusie, usually either the fiscal or a landdrost (magistrate). and the other half for the Chamber.4
Thus done and sentenced in the Castle of Good Hope on 5 July 1708.
Pronounced on the 7th thereupon.
[signed] L. v. Assenburgh, Joan Corns. d’Ableing, O. Bergh, Jns. Swellengrebel, Willem van Putten, K.J. Slotsboo, J. Brommert, Cornelis Botma, CDH (these letters were set down by Claas Hendrikx Diepenauw), Hendrick Bouman.
In my presence, [signed] A. Poulle, secretary.
Footnotes
-
Translation of provisie, meaning that one is allowed to omit certain parts of the legal process, in this case the presence of the accused. This case is similar in this technical sense to 1788 David Malan Davidsz. ↩
-
Sic for ex superabundantia. By law people were allowed three chances, but a fourth one was added ‘in superabundance’. ↩
-
A type of rifle (which went out of fashion in the course of the eighteenth century) with a long barrel which was put on a stand when shooting. Being killed in this way was considered a more honourable death than by hanging. ↩
-
The Orphan Chamber which, apart from administering the inheritance of orphans until they reached their majority, also operated as a poor fund (Visagie 1969: 56-62; De Wet 1981: 172-73). This probably explains why half of De Thuilot’s estate was donated to it. ↩
Ick, ondergetekende Jean de Thuile, gedagvaert sijnde wegens den landdrost om te verschijnen aen de Caab voor de heer d’Ableing en sijnen acthbare Raad tegens de naeste Donderdagh, den 22e December, maer door mijn indispositie is ’t mij onmogelijk en dierhalve heb ick nodigh geacht mijne redenen bij geschrifft te senden aen de heer d’Ableing en sijne achtbare Raad – mijn redenen sijn dese:
Dat op Woensdagh, den 4e deser maand, omtrent den avond,1 ick verstaan heb dat mijn sleutels waren wegh genomen, dien selve dagh hebben mijn slaven en Hottentots koren gesneden bij Louis le Riche, soodat ick niet eer als ’s avonts naer mijn sleutels konde vragen, als wanneer sij thuijs gecomen waren, en verstaan hebbende dat mijn slaaven en een Hottentot hadden gedronken, soo twijffelde ick niet off sij waren diegeene die mijn sleutels genoomen hadden. Ick vraegde eerst aen den geseijde slave die gedronken had, waer dat mijn sleutels waren, waerop hij antwoorde dat hij er niet van wist, alsdoen soo vraagde ick den Hottentot, dewelke mij ’tselffde antwoorde, derhalve niet geloovende dat andere als zij deselve genomen hadde, soo hebbe ick haer aenstonts gebonden om te doen bekennen, en nadat ick haer menigmael gevraagt had off sij wilde bekennen, so hebben sij niet gewild, hetgeene mij genootsaekt heefft te nemen een touw en daermede op haer te slaen [sic], en onder ’t slaen seijde den eene tegens den andere: Geefft de sleutels, en den andere seijde: Geefft gij die; waeruijt ick merkende dat sij de sleutels genomen hadden mits dese confessie, soo heb ick de slagen verdubbelt en haer nog eenige toegebragt met deselve touw. Pomerijntje en magre Barent waren mij komen besoeken, waerop Pomerijntje de rottingh van magre Barent heefft genomen en daermede ook op geslagen. Magre Barent heefft daerop gesegt: Laet se rusten en brengt se morgen naer Stellenbosch, ter selver tijt heb ick haer losgemaakt van den balck daer sij aen gebonden waren, latende desniettegenstaende haer nog gevleugelt omdat sij niet wegloopen soude en om haer ’s ander daags naer Stellenbosch te brengen. Ick belaste mijne andere slaav dat hij sorgh dragen soude voor den gebondene, en ontrent middernagt ging ick slapen, latende Pomerijntje en Magre Barent nogh op. Magre Barent dede off hij mij goede nagt seijde, maar ick heb het niet verstaen en Pomerijntje bleeff doen alleen op en, volgens het raport der slaven en Hottentots, soo heefft Pomerijntje haer menigmael met de voet op ’t hart getrapt en ’tselffde, soo men segt, uijt een haet die hij tegens die Hottentot hadde, al meer als zedert een jaer, en die hij gedrijgt had dood te slaen. ’s Morgens opstaende, soo vernam ick de knegt van juffrou Taillifer, Philip Menar genaamt, die wegens sijn juffrou quam om een ram, die ick haer beloofft had, en als ick die gegeven had, soo heb ick mijn affscheijt van Philip Menar genomen omme mijn schapen te gaen keren, die in ’t coorn liepen. Philip Menar was in mijn huijs, en segt gesien te hebben dat Pomerijntje haer een brandend hout onder de neus stack en haer de baerd affbrande, ick thuij[s]2 comende, soo seijde mijn slaav: Meester, ontbind mij, en ick sal de sleutels gaen soeken; daerop heb ick hem losgemaek[t] en ick gaff twe Hottentots met hem om de sleutels te gaen soeken. Sij komen weder sonder sleutels, seggende dat sijn sacken gebroocken waren en dat hij se verloore had, hetgeene hoewel vals was, want haer sacken waren goed, en daeruijt kende haere valsheijt; soo maekte ick mij vaerdig om naer Stellenbosch te gaen en haer te doen straffen, en soo als ick op mijn vertreck stond, soo sturff de Hottentot. Ick beken en stae toe dat soo als ick de Hottentot dood sag, dat ick aenstonts gevlugt ben, beset met schrick, en verlatende mijn huijs, sonder ergens meer naer om te sien, en in mijn absentie, op den vierde dagh, is mijn slaav ook gestorven; hoewel van die vier dagen hij nog twee bij mijn buurman Gidion Malherbe doorgebragt heefft, alwaer hij gesegt heefft, dat hij van Pomerijntje soo geslagen was. Siet hier, voor soo veel als ick te seggen heb, en ’tgeene van de waerhijt is, terwijl ick bidde de heer d’Ableing en sijne achtbare Raad, te doen regt ondersoek, en mij te ordonneren wat haer beliefft dat ick doen sal, en ick sal mij houden in mijn pligt, gelijck ick schuldig ben te sijn.
Haer getrouwe en gehoorsame onderdaen, Jean du Thuile. De superscriptie is aen de heer d’Ableing, administrateur van ’t gouvernement aen Cabo de Goede Hoop en aen sijne achtbare Raad.
Footnotes
-
According to Franken (1978: 131) this is one of two mistakes in the Dutch translation of the French: the Dutch text here says ‘omtrent den avond’ (around evening), but it should be ‘at sunrise’. ↩
-
The end of the paper is slightly damaged here. The missing letters have been supplied in square brackets. ↩
CJ 782 Sententiën, 1705-1713, ff. 136-141.
I, the undersigned Jean de Thuile, have been summonsed by the landdrost to appear at the Cape before the honourable d’Ableing and his honourable Council at the latest Thursday, 22 December, but through my indisposition it is impossible for me, and therefore I considered it necessary to send my reasons in writing to the honourable d’Ableing and his honourable Council – my reasons are these:
That around sunrise on Wednesday the 4th of this month, I discovered that my keys had been taken away, that same day my slaves and Hottentots had been reaping wheat at Louis le Riche so that I could not ask for my keys until the evening, which is when they came home and I discovered that my slaves and a Hottentot had been drinking, so that I did not doubt that they were the ones who had taken my keys. I first asked the said slave1 who had been drinking where my keys were, to which he answered that he knew nothing of it; I then asked the Hottentot, who answered me the same. Therefore, not believing that anybody but them had taken it, I immediately tied them up to make them confess, and after I had asked them many a time if they would confess, and since they did not want to, this forced me to take a rope and to beat them with it, and during this beating the one said to the other: “You give the keys”, while the other one said: “You give them”, from which I realised that they had taken the keys. With this confession I doubled the lashes and gave them some more with the same rope. Pomerijntje2 and Skinny Barent came to visit me, whereupon Pomerijntje took Skinny Barent’s cane and also beat [them] with it. Upon this Skinny Barent said: “Leave them be, and take them to Stellenbosch tomorrow”, at the same time I untied them from the beam to which they had been tied, leaving them nonetheless still trussed so that they would not run away, in order to take them to Stellenbosch the following day. I ordered my other slave that he should take care of the tied-up ones and, at about midnight, I went to sleep, leaving Pomerijntje and Skinny Barent still up. Skinny Barent said good night to me, but I did not understand it3 and then only Pomerijntje remained up and he, according to the report of the slaves and Hottentots, trampled with his foot several times on their chests and did this, so it is said, because of a hatred which he had had against this Hottentot for already more than a year now, and whom he had threatened to beat to death. After getting up in the morning, I saw the knechtknechtLiterally ‘male servant,’ but because most European knechten at the Cape were used as slave overseers, this original meaning gradually eroded and the word ended up meaning primarily (as in modern Afrikaans), ‘farm foreman.’ of juffrouwjuffrouwStrictly speaking this contraction of jonkvrouw was the form of address for a noble lady (as with jonker, the contraction of jonkheer, ‘lord’), but at the Cape it was more generally used by settlers for women with some social status. Moreover, in the eighteenth century this was also the term slaves used to address their female owners, alongside nonje. Taillifer, named Philip Menar, who had come on behalf of his juffrouwjuffrouwStrictly speaking this contraction of jonkvrouw was the form of address for a noble lady (as with jonker, the contraction of jonkheer, ‘lord’), but at the Cape it was more generally used by settlers for women with some social status. Moreover, in the eighteenth century this was also the term slaves used to address their female owners, alongside nonje. to collect a ram which I had promised her and, when I had given this, I took my farewell of Philip Menar in order to go and turn back my sheep who were walking into the wheat [fields]. Philip Menar was in my house and says that he had seen Pomerijntje sticking a piece of burning wood under their noses and burning off their beards. When I got home, my slave said: “Master, untie me, and I will go and look for the keys”, whereupon I untied him and gave two Hottentots with him to go and look for the keys. They returned again without the keys, saying that his [sic] pockets were loose and that he had lost them, which was false however, as their pockets were fine. Knowing from this their dishonesty, I got ready to go to Stellenbosch and to have them punished, and when I was ready to depart, the Hottentot died. I confess and admit that when I saw this Hottentot dead, I immediately fled, taken with fright, and left my house, without taking care of anything, and on the fourth day of my absence the slave also died, although of these four days he had still spent two with my neighbour Gidion Malherbe where he said that he had been beaten thus by Pomerijntje. Behold, here is everything I have to say and which is the truth, while I pray that the honourable d’Ableing and his honourable Council will do a proper investigation and will order me what pleases them, which I shall do, and I shall do my duty, as I am bound to be.
Their faithful and obedient servant, Jean du Thuile. The superscription [i.e. address] is to the honourable d’Ableing, administrator of the government at the Cape of Good Hope, and his honourable Council.
Footnotes
-
The original also has this mixture of singular and plural as regards the slave. ↩
-
Throughout his letter, Jan de Thuilot refers to Christiaan Uijker or Uker as ‘Pomerijntje’, literally ‘little Pomeranian’. Uijker was born in Pomerania (the regions of north-eastern Germany and northern Poland bordering on the Baltic) and arrived in 1693 at the Cape, where he eventually came into possession of a farm close to that of De Thuilot (Franken 1978: 129-30). ↩
-
The Dutch translation is wrong here (Franken 1978: 131). It says: “Barent pretended to say good night to me, but I did not understand it”, but after this only Pomerijntje remained to torment the slaves, and Barent disappeared from the scene. It seems as if Barent was leaving and waved or made a sign to Du Thuilot saying goodnight, which he did not understand, which would explain why Barent disappeared and only Pomerijntje was left. ↩
Aangesien den provisioneel landdrost aan ons, voor eenigen tijd verleeden, heeft vertoond hoe dat den landbouwer Jan de Thuilot, woonagtig in de Wagemaakers Valeij onder het district van Draakenstein, in de maand December lestleeden, in zijn eigen huis, zig hadde schuldig gemaakt aan twee abominable manslagen aan een zijner slaaven Andries, en van bij hem in dienst zijnde Hottentot, Caffer genaamd, waarop hem landdrost, t’ zijner verzoeken, vermits zijn aufugie, is verleend provisie, beneevens een eerste, tweede en derde citatie bij edicte, mitsgaders een vierde mandament ex superabundanti,1 met een premie van vijfentwintig rijxdaalders voor degeene die hem mog te komen te apprehendeeren en in handen van de justitie te leeveren, beneevens een interdictie penaal voor alzulke die hem opgehouden, helpen verbergen of eenige leevensmiddelen mogte toegevoegd hebben, zonder dat hij egter ten geprefigeerden dage verscheenen, maar als nog latiteerende is, zulks die delicten niet alleen na regten voor bekend, maar hij Jan de Thuilot voor den daader, als daarvan geconvinceerd en overtuigd, werd gehouden dezelve te hebben geperpetreerd, des den genoemde landdrost vervolgens heeft gediend van intendit, mitsgaders de verificatien daartoe specteerende, waar uit den edelagtbare Raade van Justitie klaar en evident consteerd, alsook ten genoegen gebleeken is:
Dat wanneer zijn defaillants slaaven en Hottentots op den 4e der gezeide maand van ’t land, kooren gesneeden hebbende, thuis waaren gekomen, hij defaillant in euvelen moede den gemelte slaav Andries en Hottentot, Caffer genaamd, op het vermoeden dat zijn sleutels genoomen en geborgen hadden, heeft aangeroepen, gebonden, met de handen aan een balk opgehaald, met een kaptouw gants deerlijk afgerost, en daarbij zoo lange gecontinueerd totdat moede is geworden, dat hij latitant vervolgens met dreijgementen eenen Christiaan Uijker heeft gepersuadeerd om de ellendige lijders mede ieder een slag à drie met hetzelfde toe te brengen, dewelke bekend heeft hetzelve gedaan te hebben. Dat hij, Jan de Thuilot, deeze menschen vervolgens nogh tragten met de voet te trappen of te schoppen, dog dat door, tusschen en bij geval daarop in komende, Barent Pietersz. Blom, (alias) magere Barent, is verhinderd en tegen gesprooken, die hem delinquant geraaden heeft dezelve los te maaken, na Stellenbosch te brengen, haar aan te klaagen, en aldaar na verdienste door den Officier te doen straffen. Dat hij defaillant de lijders op haare erbarmelijke lamentatien, en ernstige vermaaninge van voornoemde magere Barent, wel heeft ontbonden en los gemaakt, maar dat gezeide Barent vandaar weder vertrekkende, hij, Jan de Thuilot, tot dat barbaris besluit is gekomen van die twee zoo jammerlijke afgeroste lijders de voeten te binden, dezelve met het hoofd nederwaards aan dezelve balk weder op te hangen, en andermaal met hetzelve kaptouw over de lighaamen te slaan, laatende dezelve omtrent een uur lang in dat postuur hangen, waarna hij haar los laatende, den Hottentot Caffer zoodanig heeft getrapt en geschopt dat daarop aanstonds den geest gaf, en den slaav eenige weinige dagen daaraan mede, naar alle apparentie, door die euvelle kastijding, schoppen of trappen gestorven en omgebragt zal zijn; waarop hij aanstonds van zijn huis geretireerd, de vlugt genoomen, en wegens zijn non comparitie hem zelve aan die afgrijsselijke moordaaden schuldig gemaakt ende justitie versmaad heeft.
Alle ’twelke zijnde zeer abominable capitaale delicten, en dat op zulke cruelle [sic], barbarische wijse uijtgevoerd, dat ze den mensch doet afgrijzen die onder welgestelde eer- en vreedelievende regeeringen, daar niet als de liefde, rust en eendragt geplant en voortgezet, mitsgaders de justitie, tot weering en demping van de moetwillige misdaaden, spoorloose ongebondendheeden, en alle andere quaade zijdgangen, zuiver geconserveerd werd, op het aller seveerst strafbaar zijn.
Zoo is dat den edelagtbare Raade van Justitie, ten dage dienende, gezien ende geresumeerd hebbende het schriftelijk intendit, met de verdere stukken en documenten bij den provisioneel landdrost sieur Samuel Martini de Mours in juditio tot justificatie van zijn vermeeten geproduceerd, mitsgaders zijne conclusie ratione officii tegens den gedaagden, defaillant en latitant Jan de Thuilot gedaan ende genoomen, wijders met rijpe deliberatie van raade aandagtelijk gepondereerd en gelet op alle ’tgeene waarin haar Edel Agtbaarens in deeze te letten stond, doende regt in den naam en van wegen haar hoogmogende de Heeren Staten Generaal der vrije Vereenigde Nederlanden, den defaillant Jan du Thuilot hebben gecondemneert, gelijk hem condemneeren bij deezen: dat zoo wanneer in handen van de justitie alhier mogt komen te geraaken, geharquebuseerd te sullen worden datter de dood na volgd, met confiscatie van alle zijne goederen, alvoorens afgetrokken de kosten en mise van de justitie, de eene helft voor den eijscher en d’ andere helft voor de kamer.
Aldus gedaan en gesententieerd in ’t Casteel de Goede Hoop, den 5e Julij 1708.
Gepronuntieerd den 7e daaraan.
[get.] L. v. Assenburgh, Joan Corns. d’Ableing, O. Bergh, Jns. Swellengrebel, Willem van Putten, K.J. Slotsboo, J. Brommert, Cornelis Botma, CDH (deese letteren heeft Claas Hendrikx Diepenauw gestel[t]), Hendrick Bouman.
Mij present, [get.] A. Poulle, secretaris.
Footnotes
-
Sic for ex superabundantia. By law people were allowed three chances, but a fourth one was added ‘in superabundance’. ↩