III.
Lord Glenelg emphatically stated that the Kafirs had perfect justification for the war of 1835, and this affirmation was the foundation of his entire policy. He identified himself with the pseudo-philanthropists who looked upon the white inhabitants of the Eastern districts as usurpers and persecutors. The ideas of 1836 remain substantially the ideas of 1879, the only difference being that the venue is changed and that the tide of savagery has been pushed further eastward. The settlers of 1820 were placed by the British Government on the frontier of the Cape Colony, and on their part and that of their descendants there was certainly no usurpation, while it positively seems to be the result of monomania to speak of their having persecuted the Kafirs. The incontestable facts of history prove exactly the opposite: it was the Kafirs that harassed and persecuted them. A comparatively small, struggling, and sparsely settled community was persistently tormented and impoverished by most cruel thefts and constant aggressions, which at last culminated in wars of defence most disastrous to the farmers and the principal portion of the settlers. The stock, dwellings, etc., of the poor border population destroyed in the war of 1835 alone were valued at upwards of £280,000! This was a cruel, terrible infliction on those poor settlers, but it was not considered enough by the Exeter Hall party. Christianity was blasphemed by a policy of the grossest injustice adopted in its name. Those who were bound by every tie of justice—putting aside charity—to defend their own countrymen turned against them most virulently, and did everything in their power to cause the re-enactment of the bloody scenes in which British settlers in this distant land had suffered so much.
In Mr. Godlonton's "Case for the Colonists" there is abundant proof of the facts already adduced. The Kafirs were the aggressors and the colonists the sufferers. Gross injustice, faithlessness, rapine, and fraud—or in other words, savagery—had to be grappled with, repelled, and conquered in the Cape Colony, and the pseudo-philanthropists of England, headed by Lord Glenelg, did everything in their power to aid and assist the latter cause. Perhaps the most clear proof of the error of the British policy on which we are now animadverting may be found in the evidence of one of Lord Glenelg's chosen men and champions. Sir George Napier was sent out specially to reverse the policy of Sir Benjamin D'Urban. In answer to a Port Elizabeth address, he said, "I decidedly tell you that I accepted the government of this colony in the conviction that the former system, as regarded our Kafir neighbours, was erroneous; and I am come out here, agreeing in, and determined to support, the system of policy pursued by the Lieutenant-Governor of these districts (Captain Stockenstrom) in accordance with the instructions which his Honour and myself have received from her Majesty's Secretary of State (Lord Glenelg)." Nothing can be clearer than this, or more decided; but when Sir George Napier learnt the facts of the case, the mist of prejudice dropped from his eyes. Most fortunately, this officer was an honest man, and dared to give his testimony in favour of the truth in spite of his employers in England. He found that the policy he had been directed to carry out "shocked one's natural sense of justice" (these are his own words), and that he had been completely duped and deceived. Referring to the aggressions of the Kafirs, Sir George Napier says, "It would not be just to pass over the fact that while much loss has been sustained by the colonists, as stated in the official returns, I am not aware, except in one instance—and that one of no importance—that any aggression has been committed by the border colonists against the persons or property of the neighbouring tribes." It was at Port Elizabeth, and in the month of October, 1840, that Sir George Napier forcibly admitted that the Glenelg treaties "seem to shock our sense of natural justice, and to be unsupported by any considerations of sound policy." Speaking subsequently to a gathering of the Slambie and Congo tribes of Kafirs at Fort Peddie, his Excellency said, "You have sustained no bad treatment on the part of the colonists, and I now appeal to you whether the colonists have not kept their part of the treaties ever since they were made? I ask if there has been a single act of injustice of which you have any reason to complain on the part of the Government and the colonists? You will answer, None. I therefore appeal to you for justice towards the colonists." In fact, Sir George Napier was forced to thoroughly change his opinions, and it is unnecessary to multiply proofs of this well-known fact. Would to God that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, or even Sir Charles Dilke, could come out to South Africa and report to the Home Government so as to avert the awful catastrophe of surrendering conquered Zululand to Cetywayo! This would be a suicide greater in extent and more terrible even in its consequences than the surrender of the province of Queen Adelaide by Lord Glenelg. But surely if the world had been searched no more reliable man than Sir Bartle Frere could have been chosen. He is a most upright, wise, and experienced administrator; the friend of her Majesty the Queen, and himself distinguished for all the qualities which make men respected and trusted. He belongs to the "Aborigines' Protection Society," and is in all respects above suspicion, yet his most positive assurances weigh lightly in the balance against the monomania existing among certain classes in Europe, that savages must be right and colonists invariably wrong. It is a bitter reflection that Zulu savagery finds its best allies among the very people from whom we spring, and that the most deadly enemies of the white people of South Africa are literally "those of their own household."
One of the most able newspapers in South Africa echoes the sentiments of Lord Glenelg, Dr. Philip, and Bishop Colenso. It declares against annexation, and also against interference with the usages of the native chiefs. It is said that to rule the Zulus through their chiefs is the policy of her Majesty's Ministers. The extraordinary admission is added that "order will be found better than caprice and the law better than individual notions of right." Surely we must admit that the rule of chiefs is purely a rule of absolute caprice, and that the history of Cetywayo's government specially proves it. The will of the monarch is the law of the land, and bloody sacrifices constantly connected with witchcraft are purely the effects of cruel and avaricious caprice. The entire history of South Africa shows the folly and cruelty of the policy advocated by the enemies of Sir Bartle Frere. No careful student of Cape history can fail to see that the Glenelg plan of non-annexation was most disastrous, while it was only when the power of the Gaika and Gcaleka chiefs had been finally taken from them—and not till then—that the people of this country, whites as well as blacks, could hope to be finally released from the fearful curse of recurring thefts, bloodshed, and wars. In fact history teaches plainly that to secure peace, prosperity, and happiness to all the people of Southern Africa it is absolutely necessary: (1.) To secure territorial guarantees, such as those justly acquired in a war of defence by Sir Benjamin D'Urban. (2.) To create a firmly knit and strong confederation of colonies and states in which the Queen and just laws shall be supreme, to the exclusion of witchcraft and the caprice of chiefs.
Incidentally, we may be permitted to illustrate what is really meant by this "rule of chiefs." Every one knows that diabolical and wholesale slaughter is a characteristic of the rule of all Zulu potentates. Dingaan, Panda, Cetywayo, are all alike in this particular. It is the system as much as the men that we have to blame. Perhaps there is no more distinguishing proof of constant cold-blooded and revolting cruelty arising directly and constantly from the rule of chiefs than in the administration of the laws of witchcraft. One example out of hundreds is sufficient. Missionaries from time to time publish most revolting cases, but they are all of the same type, and merely as a sample we refer our readers to the one alluded to by Mr. Godlonton, at page 99 of his "Case for the Colonists." The son of a chief was sick, and a man of property was immediately selected for torture and death, simply because the witch-doctor said that it was under his evil influence that the sick man was suffering. He begged and prayed for instant death, but of course that boon is never granted. First of all the victim was held to the ground, and several men pierced his body all over with Kafir needles, two or three inches deep. The victim bore this with extraordinary resolution, and his tormentors became tired, complaining of the pain it gave their hands, and of the needles or skewers bending. By this time a fire was kindled, into which large square stones were placed to heat. His wife having first been cruelly beaten and ill-treated, the victim was brought to the fire, laid on his back, with his feet and hands tied to pegs driven into the ground. When the stones became as hot as possible, they were placed upon his groin, stomach, and chest. Then the scorching and broiling of the body went on, the stones occasionally slipping off, and being immediately replaced and held on by sticks. These awful tortures lasted from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., when the unfortunate victim of the benefit of the rule of the chiefs in South Africa breathed his last. We are asked to perpetuate this system, and to surrender any conquered country in Zululand, so that savagery may still continue without interruption, and we may reap in Zululand from the policy of 1879 the fruits obtained in 1845 and 1852 from the Glenelg policy of 1836.—April 29, 1879.