South Africa and the Transvaal War (Vol. 1-8). Louis Creswicke
The formation of their attacks represents the figure of a beast with horns, chest, and loins. While making a feint with one horn, the other, unperceived in long grass or bush, swoops round and closes in on the enemy. The chest then advances to attack. The loins are kept at a distance, and simply join in pursuit.
The news of the disaster spread fast. Sir Bartle Frere, on the morning of the 24th, was awakened by the arrival of two almost distraught and wholly unintelligible messengers. Their report, when it could be at last comprehended, seemed too horrible for belief. That they had escaped some terrible ordeal was evident; that they were members of the company of naval volunteers that formed part of the General's army, their uniform proclaimed. But of the General they could say nothing—he might be dead, he might be missing—all they knew was of their own miraculous escape from a scene of slaughter. Colonel Pulleine they declared was dead, but further news had to be awaited with anxious hearts.
Meanwhile Lord Chelmsford had heard the horrible news. The camp had been seen in the possession of the Zulus. Worn and weary with heavy marching in a baking sun, he and his troops began to retreat. At nightfall, thoroughly jaded, they returned to a grim scene. All around lay the still silent dead—the corpses of the comrades they had parted with but a few hours before. There, amid the pathetic wreckage, were they forced to lay them down to rest!
Fortunately the Zulus, having plundered the camp, had made off, and the British force was able the next day to proceed to the relief of Rorke's Drift. At Rorke's Drift the now world-celebrated defence of Lieutenant Bromhead, of the 24th, and Lieutenant Chard, R.E., took place. These young officers had been left with one hundred and four soldiers to take charge of a small depôt of provisions and an hospital, and to keep open the communication with Natal. Some hours after the disaster of Isandlwana their post was attacked by Dabulamanzi (brother of Cetchwayo) and over three thousand of his finest warriors. The little garrison had made for themselves a laager of sacks of maize and biscuit-boxes, and behind these they defended themselves so stubbornly and so heroically throughout the night of the 23rd, that the Zulu chieftain, discomfited and harassed, eventually retired. For their magnificent pluck the two young officers received the Victoria Cross. Their action had saved Natal from invasion by the enemy. Of the little garrison seventeen fell and ten were wounded. The loss of the Zulus was about three hundred.
THE DEFENCE OF RORKE'S DRIFT, 22nd to 23rd JANUARY 1879.
Painted by Alphonse de Neuville, Etched by L. Flameng.
Reproduced by special arrangement with the Fine Art Society, London.
Colonel Pearson's column, as we said, crossed the Lower Tugela near the sea, with the intention of joining the other columns at Ulundi. On the way thither he was attacked by a Zulu force at Inyesani. This force, though it more than doubled the strength of his own, he drove back with heavy loss, and marched to the Norwegian Mission station, Eshowe. On his arrival there on the 23rd of January, he learnt the awful news of the disaster, and instantly sent his cavalry back to Natal, fortified his station, and waited there the arrival of reinforcements.
The third column, commanded by Colonel Evelyn Wood (consisting of 1700 British soldiers, 50 farmers under Commandant Pieter Uys, and some 300 blacks), reached Kambula in safety, and fortified a post there. Colonel Wood harassed the enemy by frequent sallies, however, and on one occasion the attack on the Zlobane Mountain lost about ninety-six of his men. Among these were Colonel Weatherley, his young son, and Commandant Uys. The following day the British laager was attacked by a horde of Zulus, who were routed. In this engagement Colonel Wood, Colonel Buller, and Captain Woodgate especially distinguished themselves.
Lord Chelmsford, with a force of soldiers and sailors, marched in April from Natal to the relief of Colonel Pearson at Eshowe. He arrived there in safety, after having encountered and beaten back the Zulus at Ginginlova: yet it was not until the 4th of July that the troops eventually reached Ulundi, where the final battle and victory took place. But of this later.
AFFAIRS AT HOME
Two days after the arrival of the news of the disaster at Isandlwana, Parliament met. The reverse in Zululand naturally engrossed all thoughts. Questions innumerable were addressed to Government, as to the strength of reinforcements to be sent out—as to the further necessity for war at all—as to the so-called high-handed action of Sir Bartle Frere, and the so-called blunders of Lord Chelmsford. Scapegoats were wanted, and, as a natural consequence, the two most energetic and hard-worked of the Queen's servants were attacked.
A political pitched battle was imminent. The Ministers declined to withdraw their confidence from the Lord High Commissioner, though they passed on him censure for his hasty and independent proceedings. That the members of Government had a high appreciation of his great experience, ability, and energy was apparent, for they declared they had "no desire to withdraw in the present crisis of affairs the confidence hitherto reposed in him, the continuance of which was now more than ever needed to conduct our difficulties in South Africa to a successful termination." On the 19th of March 1879 the Secretary of the Colonies wrote to Sir Bartle Frere, to the effect that Ministers were unable to find, on the documents placed before them, "that evidence of urgent necessity for immediate action which alone would justify him in taking, without their full knowledge and sanction, a course almost certain to result in a war."
The day for discussion of South African affairs in the Upper House arrived.
Lord Lansdowne moved, on the 11th of March, "That this House, while willing to support her Majesty's Government in all necessary measures for defending the possessions of her Majesty in South Africa, regrets that the ultimatum, which was calculated to produce immediate war, should have been presented to the Zulu king without authority from the responsible advisers of the Crown, and that an offensive war should have been commenced without imperative and pressing necessity or adequate preparation; and the House regrets that, after the censure passed upon the High Commissioner by her Majesty's Government, in the despatch of March 19, 1879, the conduct of affairs in South Africa should be retained in his hands."
A keen debate ensued. The Opposition clamoured for the recall of Sir Bartle Frere, as the example of independent action set by him might be followed by other and more distant representatives of the Crown. The war was ascribed to Lord Carnarvon's impatience for South African confederation and his "incurable greed" for extending the limits of the Colonies, and the annexation of the Transvaal was declared to be a mistake, unless the Government was prepared to send out a large military force to South Africa.
The Government combated these arguments. They denied they had censured Sir Bartle Frere, and stated that they had passed no opinion on his policy, but merely asserted as a principle that "Her Majesty's advisers, and they only, must decide the grave issues of peace and war."
It was argued that war with Cetchwayo was inevitable sooner or later, and that the Lord High Commissioner had thought it advisable to be prompt in the matter. His conduct, it was true, had not the entire approval of the Ministry, but every one knew it was unwise to change horses in crossing a stream, and his action had not been such as to outweigh the many considerations which required the continuance of his service in South Africa.
Lord Beaconsfield, addressing the House, defended Sir Bartle Frere, and expressed opinions on the policy of confederation as opposed to that of annexation, opinions which afford so much instruction in regard to our relations with the Transvaal that they are best repeated in their entirety.
"I generally find," he said, "there is one advantage at the end of a debate, besides the relief which is afforded by its termination, and that is that both sides of the House seem pretty well agreed as to the particular point that really is at issue; but the rich humour of the noble duke (Duke of Somerset) has again diverted us from the consideration of the motion really before the House. If the noble duke and his friends were desirous of knowing what was the policy which her Majesty's Government were prepared generally to pursue in South Africa, if they