Harry Morant occupied the image of a reckless bravado, thief, compulsive liar, male chauvinist, ‘frequently a drunkard brawler, (and) a bully totally without conscience.’ Handcock, a self confessing liar still qualifies as a murderer, ‘Handcock seems also to have killed a local missionary and even one of his own men.’ Morant and Handcock were not scapegoats, simply rogues. Morant personified his ‘liar’ image, claiming to be the son of Admiral Sir George Digby Morant rather than the actual son of union master Edwin Murrant. The Breaker’s morals and beliefs are dubious for a man held in high regard. He confessed and showed little remorse to shooting the twelve Boer prisoners and Visser, believed but not proven responsible for the mutilation of Captain Hunt on August 5th, 1901. An enraged Morant denied Visser to speak in defence. However with limited court-martial for the Boer prisoners, it remains unclear whether Morant and Handcock knew if they executed the right Boers. Morant and Handcock’s signed confession further reveals their inner personalities, ‘We shot the Boers who killed and mutilated our friend (the best mate I had on Earth).’ Despite demonstrating loyalty, consumed with revenge they ignored morals or fair justice by denying any judicial proceedings to the prisoners. Execution without the opportunity to appeal was a cruel punishment. An implication does arise from the confession that Morant and Handcock acted in revenge rather than following orders, attained from their guilt. The 1929 epistle from Lt. George Witton to counsel Major JF Thomas further questions Morant’s persona and ability to speak the truth,
I believe Morant got Handcock to deny his previous statement in which he made a clean breast of everything and they got to work to frame up an alibi…
The reliability of the source is immense, as Witton wrote in defence of Morant and Handcock while critiquing the British High Command. Writer Max Sollitt comments on the nature of Morant’s integrity with the jurisdiction,
..Morant falsified reports…clear he had not the slightest belief that he was carrying out open and legal orders as he claimed at his court-martial.
Morant’s perceived ‘virtuous and legendary’ character is further contradicted by the fifteen officers within the Bushveldt Carbineers. In disgust they reported Morant to the High Command and supplied evidence against him. Despite this, many continue to argue Morant was viewed in high esteem by his military contemporaries. The ‘righteous’ Breaker also held the reputation as a mule thief during the Boer War and experienced marital problems with wife, Daisy O’Dwyer.
A month after the marriage he was in trouble with the law over unpaid bills and a stolen saddle, and his disillusioned bride told him to take a walk and not return until he reformed. He never went back
Morant lived an astonishing past for a well-received Australian icon. The common misconception of Harry Morant as a colourful underdog and victim of a British appeasement conspiracy with Germany is indeed questionable.
Morant and Handcock were not ‘scapegoats’, as they defied orders and demonstrated a desire to revenge the death of their beloved friend Captain Hunt. Evidence remains of no official order to kill prisoners. However had such an order been issued by the High Command, both men would not have escaped punishment. Even the extremist Nazi soldiers during World War II were not allowed to conceal their deeds with the plea they were obeying orders from above. This contention of ‘obeying orders’ is offered in George Witton’s Scapegoats of the Empire, although the usefulness of the source is limited by its obvious propaganda. Morant never received official orders from the High Command to execute Boer prisoners; rather he took the law into his own hands upon learning of his Captain’s death.
Morant became very angry on hearing this (Hunt’s mutilation) and gave orders that in future no prisoners were to be taken.
Morant then proceeded to manipulate these commands for his own purposes of revenge.
He told Lieutenant Witton, new to the unit, that these orders actually came from Captain Hunt, who had got them himself from General Lord Kitchener’s headquarters in Pretoria…they were no to be obeyed.
Morant felt the desire to avenge his friend no matter the consequences. However, Witton cannot be classified a murderer, as he was young, impressionable and eager to please the demands of those above him.
Harry Morant and Peter Handcock can be interpreted as murderers rather than victims, for their involvement in the unprovoked murder of a German missionary. Though found innocent of instigating and murdering reverend Heese, a naturalised British subject who was killed by Handcock and left in the presence of grazing mules. This event was the final violation, and great resentment was felt towards Australian troopers,
After this episode there was almost a mutiny amongst the Australian troopers at the fort and a letter was sent to Colonel Hall (British commandant of the Pietersburg area) making allegations against their officers.
In conclusion, Harry ‘The Breaker’ Morant and Peter Joseph Handcock were not heroes or freedom fighters to be lauded. Both men were undesirable characters with cruel, callous and crude traits. Both were responsible for the deaths of Boers prisoners without trial and an innocent holy man. Their awful deeds not only brought a premature end to their lives, but great embarrassment to other Australians abroad and at home. These men were not scapegoats. Rather, they exploited the opportunities and circumstances provided by the British forces to carry out what they pleased.
The Breaker Morant and Peter Handcock Case, Dr Craig Wilcox
The Bulletin, 19th April 1902, Frank Fox
The Breaker Morant and Peter Handcock Case, Dr Craig Wilcox
The Myth of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, Max Sollit
The Myth of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, Max Sollit
The Myth of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, Max Sollit
The Myth of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, Max Sollit