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
[43] It is neither customary nor convenient to speak publicly of a
parent, and I desire to let facts speak for themselves as much as
possible. I feel, however, bound to remark that of all the mistakes
made by a succession of rulers in Natal, perhaps the most foolish
and unnecessary has been that jealousy of episcopal “or unofficial”
interference, which has blinded them to the fact that the Bishop has
always been ready to give any assistance in his power to the local
Government in carrying out all just and expedient measures towards
the natives, without claiming any credit or taking any apparently
prominent position beyond his own; and, so long as justice is done,
would greatly prefer its being done by those in office. He has never
interfered, except when his duty as a man, and as the servant of a
just and merciful Master, has made it imperatively necessary that he
should do so; nor does he covet any political power or influence. To
a government which intends to carry out a certain line of policy in
defiance of justice and honour, he would ever be an opponent; but
one which honestly aims at the truth would assuredly meet with his
earnest support.
[44] “The recollection of past events”—that is to say, of the
slaughter of many men, women, and children, the destruction of homes,
and the sufferings of the living;—this can hardly with reason be said
to be _kept alive_ by attempts to ameliorate the condition of those
that remained, and to show them some small kindness and pity. How
“a good feeling” was to be restored between the victims and their
conquerors by other means, Sir Garnet does not suggest.
[45] In common only with the rest of the tribe.
[46] Three women and two children only have been allowed to join him.
[47] Which did not prevent their being of the utmost importance
in considering the case of the chief under trial at the time the
statements were made.
[48] Sir B. Pine complains in his despatch, December 31st, 1874, of
the “intolerable injustice” of charges being made against Mr. J.
Shepstone, upon evidence taken by the Bishop _ex parte_, without
the _safety of publicity_ and the opportunity of cross-examination.
Yet Sir Garnet Wolseley refused to allow publicity or searching
cross-examination by experienced advocates.
[49] One of the original four.
[50] Mr. Shepstone says in his second report that a day or two
previous to the meeting with Matshana, he had received information to
the effect that the chief’s intentions were to put him and his people
to death at the expected interview, and all the efforts made by Mr.
Shepstone and his witnesses were to prove, first, the murderous
intentions of Matshana; and, secondly, that _nevertheless_ Mr.
Shepstone had no counter-plans for violence, and did not fire upon
the people.
[51] Author’s italics.
[52] Rather by the determination of their rulers to preserve their
land from Boer encroachments.
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