A halt was made for the night amidst the _débris_ of (the proper right of) the camp, on the “neck;” the infantry covering the west, and the mounted troops and guns the east side. During the night there were one or two false alarms, and the whole force, at early dawn, moved off towards Rorke’s Drift, as the General was anxious about the safety of that important post; also the troops had no spare ammunition,[143] but little food, and “it was certain that daylight would reveal a sight which could not but have a demoralising effect upon the whole force.”—(P. P. [C. 2252] p. 76). In Lord Chelmsford’s despatch of 27th January, he gives a narrative of the attack on the camp, but remarks “the absolute accuracy of which, however, I cannot vouch for” (pp. 76, 77). On comparing his “narrative” with the _facts_, it will be found to be _absolutely inaccurate_. But Lord Chelmsford makes some remarks which cannot be passed, over in silence. He says: “Had the force in question but taken up a defensive position in the camp itself, and utilised there the materials for a hasty entrenchment;” but he does not point out how the “force in question” was to know of the near approach of the Zulu army, he himself having neglected to search the country where that army lay. He had prepared no “defensive position;” but he had selected a fatal spot for his camp, which, covering a front of about half a mile, was utterly indefensible as it stood; and he had “pooh-poohed” the suggestion of taking defensive precautions when made by Colonel Glyn; and, further, it does not appear that there was _any time whatever_ for the “force in question” to do anything but fight. Lord Chelmsford then says: “It appears that the oxen were yoked to the waggons three hours before the attack took place, so that there was ample time to construct that waggon-laager which the Dutch in former days understood so well.” This remark comes with peculiar ill-grace from Lord Chelmsford, who not only had not taken any precautions, but had not permitted any laager or other defence to be made; and whose reply to a suggestion of a laager at Isandhlwana was, “It would take a week to make.” Also it must not be forgotten that the attack on Isandhlwana was _without warning_. He next says: “Had, however, the tents been struck, and the British troops placed with their backs to the precipitous Isalwana Hill, I feel sure that they could have made a successful resistance.” Here again he would blame the dead to cover the faults of the living! But even had the troops been thus placed (as some eventually appear to have been), how long could they keep at bay, when ammunition failed,[144] an enemy armed with weapons they could use with fatal effect out of reach of the bayonet?