History of the Zulu war and its originColenso, Frances E. (Frances Ellen)
History
History of the Zulu war and its origin
Colenso, Frances E. (Frances Ellen)
Zulu War, 1879
“Of course, if the object of the memorialists is war, if what they
desire is a war with the Zulu nation, it is not to be wondered at
that they should find fault with any steps that have been taken to
prevent the necessity for war. Nor, if they desire war, is it to be
expected that they should be favourable to arbitration, though I find
it difficult to reconcile the expression of the apprehensions of the
memorialists that arbitration would decide against them, with the
unanimous expression of opinion, previously given to your Excellency
by some of the leading men of the district, that the proposal made
by me was a Christian, humane, and admirable one; that they had no
misgivings regarding the justice of the claim of the State, and
that they believed the more it was investigated ... the clearer and
more rightful would that claim prove itself to be. Your Excellency
observes that the deep feeling of distrust shown by the memorialists
is scarcely to be wondered at, when it is remembered that they are
compelled to occupy with their families fortified camps, while their
farms in the neighbourhood are being occupied by Zulus, their crops
reaped, and their cultivated lands tilled by Zulus, and the timber of
their houses used as Zulu firewood.
“I do not quite understand what farms and cultivated lands are
referred to; because in a previous despatch—your despatch, No. 7, of
February 5th—your Excellency, in referring to the disputed territory,
states, so I understand, that it ‘_is at present occupied solely by
Zulus_,’ and that, although the whole of it has been apportioned in
farms to Transvaal subjects, _it has not been occupied by them_.’”
The matter was referred to the High Commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere,
and the appointment of a commission was approved by him. He plainly
took it for granted that, as Sir T. Shepstone had said, the Transvaal
claim was based on “evidence the most incontrovertible, overwhelming,
and clear,” and looked to the commission for the double advantage of
enabling Sir T. Shepstone “to clear up or put on record, in a form
calculated to satisfy Her Majesty’s Government, an answer to all
doubts as to the facts and equity of the question,” and of gaining
time for preparing a military force to silence and subjugate the
Zulus should they object (as he expected) to such an award. That
nothing short of military coercion of the Zulus would settle the
matter, was evidently Sir Bartle Frere’s fixed idea; in fact that was
the foregone conclusion with him from beginning to end.
On February 12th, Sir Henry Bulwer sent a message to Cetshwayo (2079,
p. 140), to this effect:
“The Lieut.-Governor now sends to let Cetshwayo know that he has
selected, for the purpose of holding this inquiry, the Queen’s
Attorney-General in Natal (Hon. M. H. Gallway, Esq.), the Secretary
for Native Affairs (Hon. J. W. Shepstone, Esq.), and Colonel
Durnford, an officer in the Queen’s army.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account