FOOTNOTES:
[321] This referred to the bags of earth and barbed-wire that had been placed by N.P. along the verandah of the court-house. As Dinuzulu was known to be calling up an indefinite number of young men from neighbouring Chiefs, on the pretext of hoeing his gardens, it is not surprising the police, being a small military body, felt it necessary to entrench themselves. One of the Chiefs appealed to by Dinuzulu, Maboko by name, who had two years previously married a sister of Dinuzulu, deposed as follows (24th Jan., 1908): "Just after the first body of troops (i.e. the Police Reserves) had arrived and camped at Nongoma, Dinuzulu sent me ... the following message: That the Amakosi (meaning troops, not the main body) had arrived at Nongoma, and he, therefore, asked me to send boys of my tribe to him to do hoeing. These boys were to bring their weapons (izikali) with them. They were to come stealthily (nyenya) by twos and threes. The boys of the Mavalana and Hayelwengwenya regiments were said to be the ones required.... In reply, I said: 'I cannot comply with Dinuzulu's request, having regard to the fact that European forces have just arrived at Nongoma, and seeing that Dinuzulu requires these boys to go to him armed.'"—Cd. 3,998, p. 69.
[322] As seen from the foregoing note, the calling up was not done in the usual way, as far as one Chief at any rate was concerned.
[323] And this in spite of having so 'bad a knee' three days before as to be unable to proceed to the magistracy as directed!
[324] That is, Dinuzulu's surrender.
[325] Cd. 3,998, p. 14. As far back as March, 1907, Dinuzulu's friend, Miss Harriette Colenso, had advised him in these terms: "If I could advise those who are being sought after, I would say that anyone who is aware that a serious charge is laid against him, had better take a long leap until he reaches a safer place ... but any and every person of no importance, who is merely panic-stricken, let him betake himself to Sir C. Saunders at Eshowe, and perhaps (if you see fit) present himself as having been advised by you, for thus they may be but little condemned. For those who are in hiding are not only hurting themselves, but they are the key that locks up the many who are in gaol, and who are dying there. If only the matter of those who are in hiding could be ended, we might venture to beseech the Governor, and you might join us in our petition, for we (you and I) are not alone, there are others, but we are stopped by the position of those who are in hiding."—Cd. 4,328, p. 24. This edifying counsel was not followed by Dinuzulu. The spirit, however, of the advice, was followed exactly, i.e. do anything rather than loyally surrender those who have deliberately broken the law; it was just that advice that led to his ruin.
[326] Where Cetshwayo was captured in 1879.
[327] In the following year, however, chiefly owing to gross misconduct towards the Magistrate, Greytown, when engaged collecting taxes, Silwana was summoned by the Supreme Chief and, after inquiry, deposed from his position and sent to live in another part of the Colony. Such action rendered it necessary to divide the tribe into parts, placing each under a separate Chief.
[328] Many of the unregistered guns were of the Martini-Henry, Mauser, or Lee-Metford types.
[329] This Chief and his men were present, as also some 200 of Mpikanina's, though late in moving towards the road and drift; the delay arose through having to search dongas, etc., for firearms.
[330] The guns were unlawfully in the possession of these Natives, as was conclusively proved by letters and figures stamped thereon.
[XXII.]
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AND TRIAL OF DINUZULU.—WITHHOLDING OF HIS SALARY.—HIS SETTLEMENT IN THE TRANSVAAL.
Within ten days of Dinuzulu's removal from Nongoma, a beginning was made with the preliminary examination. Mr. T.R. Bennett, one of the senior Magistrates, was appointed, by virtue of being a Justice of the Peace for the Colony, to hold the inquiry, under the authority of Ordinance No. 18, 1845. Mr. W.S. Bigby, an advocate of the Law Department, appeared for the Crown, and Messrs. E. Renaud and R.C.A. Samuelson for the accused. The examination was held at the Central Gaol, Pietermaritzburg. The gaol rather than the Magistrate's court-room was chosen so as to obviate the necessity of escorting the prisoner twice daily through the streets of the town for the whole time the examination lasted, viz. seven months. Numerous witnesses, mainly Natives (of both sexes) gave evidence, much of it very lengthy. The longer the inquiry continued, the better the understanding obtained by those concerned of the case in all its bearings. Charges, at first somewhat vague, soon began to assume definite shape, thereby facilitating the labours of the prosecution, whilst confining the efforts of the defence to specific issues. At the same time, much evidence of a loose, general and hearsay character was given, inevitable with Native witnesses, which, though it may have prejudiced, and perhaps did prejudice, Dinuzulu to some extent in one way, often benefited him in another; and the longer the inquiry lasted, the more numerous were the opportunities of the evidence for the Crown being weakened or deliberately undermined.
Ever since the beginning of the Rebellion, Dinuzulu's name had been freely referred to in all parts of Natal and Zululand as associated therewith. The great majority of Europeans regarded him as having exerted a distinctly evil influence, whilst a few held he was rather sinned against than sinning. The opportunity had at last come for sifting things to the bottom. Of this the Government resolved to take full advantage. It is, therefore, not surprising that the scope of the inquiry was wide; that European and Native witnesses were exceptionally numerous; that they had to be procured from all parts of Zululand, Natal and the Transvaal; and that the investigation was as rigorous and protracted as it was. At the same time, probably better results, from a judicial as well as political point of view, would have been attained by concluding it sooner.
Among the means available to Dinuzulu for meeting the expenses of his defence was his salary of £500 per annum. This he had been in the habit of drawing regularly from the Natal Government ever since his return from St. Helena in 1898. As soon as he was arrested, however, the Natal Government suspended payment, on the ground that he was no longer discharging the functions in virtue of which it had been granted. As the Imperial Government was concerned in his appointment as Chief, its approval was sought, but, owing to a difference of opinion, this was withheld.
In order to appreciate the situation that then arose, it would be well to refer to the conditions under which the Chief was repatriated, quoted at length on p. 478.
The Natal Government's view was that: (i) Suspension of salary was in accordance with universal practice, and the Imperial Colonial Service rules; (ii) only so long as the Chief behaved well and obeyed the laws laid down for his guidance would the salary not be withdrawn, except with the approval of the Secretary of State; (iii) arrest and detention carried with them suspension from the service of the Government,—there was a clear distinction between suspension from office and salary, and withdrawal of an office and salary. It was, moreover, feared that the attitude of the Imperial Government would prejudice the merits of the criminal proceedings being taken against Dinuzulu, as well as embarrass the Natal Government in connection with the demand that had already been made by Dinuzulu's legal advisers for payment of the salary.
The Secretary of State consented neither to suspension nor to withdrawal, and for these, among other, reasons: (i) According to Imperial Colonial Service rules, proceedings for suspension are not taken against a public officer pending criminal proceedings; (ii) the case could not be dealt with as an ordinary civil service appointment,—being without precedent, it should be dealt with on its own merits; (iii) Dinuzulu's position, as Government Induna, could not, even temporarily, be taken away without the approval of the Secretary of State, and, before signifying such approval, it would be necessary for the Natal Government to show satisfactorily that the Chief had contravened the laws laid down for his guidance; suspension, therefore, should follow and not precede the trial; (iv) Dinuzulu must be assumed to be innocent until proved guilty; (v) it was most important, in giving a fair trial, to leave him in possession of means to arrange for his defence.
After several months' correspondence, with no prospect of a solution being arrived at, the Imperial Government decided, on the 21st July, "to pay the amount of Dinuzulu's salary, so far as it had accrued to date," viz. £333 6s. 8d. This decision was at once taken the strongest exception to in Natal and discussed at length a few days later in Parliament, when the Attorney-General (The Hon. T.F. Carter) reviewed the position at length. As, however, the Natal Ministry were equally anxious with His Majesty's Government that the defence should not be prejudiced for lack of funds, the Secretary of State was advised that "whilst maintaining that their (Natal Ministers') contention is correct on question of suspension, ... they are prepared, if approached by Dinuzulu, to provide a sum of money to assist him in his defence." Further discussion thereupon became unnecessary. On the 1st October following, a sum of £500 was paid by the Natal Government to Dinuzulu's agents for the purpose named.
The preliminary examination was finally closed on the 30th July, the prisoner being formally committed for trial before such court as might be directed by the Attorney-General, on the following charges: High treason; public violence; sedition and rebellion; murder of, or being accessory to murder of, or conspiring to murder, Gence; inciting to murder Gence and Mapoyisa; contravening the Firearms Act, 1905. Dinuzulu emphatically declared his innocence. He complained of an opportunity not having been given him of "arranging" his defence. "A selection of criminals," he added, "and of my personal enemies has been made, to testify to deliberate untruths." His indunas Mankulumana and Mgwaqo were committed at the same time, on charges of high treason. The three examinations had extended over the period 23rd December, 1907, to 30th July, 1908.
Early steps were taken by Dinuzulu's friends to obtain the services of one of the ablest lawyers in South Africa. The brief was offered to and accepted by the Hon. W.P. Schreiner, K.C., formerly Premier of the Cape Colony, though Mr. Schreiner did not proceed to Natal until a few days before the trial began.[331]
The notorious rebel Cakijana, after evading the police in Zululand and Natal, proceeded direct to Dinuzulu's friend, Miss Colenso, at Bishopstowe. This took place on the 9th March, during the continuance of martial law, and serves to show how necessary it was to maintain such law in Zululand. Instead of promptly handing him and his companion over to the police, Miss Colenso instructed an attorney at 10 p.m. to take their statements at length. Only by working through the night could this be done, and not till the day following were the rebels put into a cab and conveyed by Miss Colenso to the Chief Commissioner of Police. There is reason to suppose that Dinuzulu or his friends in Pietermaritzburg had directed Cakijana to proceed to Bishopstowe in connection with the defence. Thus, even principal rebels seem to have been acting under the Chief's orders, and this whilst his own preliminary examination on charges of high treason, sedition, murder, etc., was actually in progress.
The question has sometimes been discussed as to the advisability of holding examinations, such as that of Dinuzulu, under the ordinary law, even though, as in this instance, the trial takes place before a specially-constituted court.
In the first place, the offences were of an unusual nature. As they did not fall within the category of ordinary crimes, it would seem they ought to have been treated abnormally. Special procedure was followed in the cases of Langalibalele (in 1874) and Dinuzulu himself (in 1888), whilst, during the Boer War, special courts were again appointed to deal with European prisoners charged with high treason, sedition, etc. Legislative authority under which this could have been done was wanting.
Owing to Dinuzulu's enormous influence in Natal and Zululand, witnesses could be got to give evidence against him only with the greatest difficulty, especially at the outset. Such influence was a most serious obstacle to the Crown. The circumstances were exceptional. Particularly those able to give the most incriminating evidence were in a chronic state of fear, for they knew that a number of loyalists of high and low rank had already been murdered at different times (presumably by the order of Dinuzulu), at any rate it was generally so supposed. In the act of giving evidence unreservedly in open court on behalf of the Crown, they, too, became transformed into "loyalists" and "prominent loyalists," and therefore marked men. Although most of the murderers had, by the time the trial began, been apprehended, none had been tried and punished. There was, therefore, in the eyes of the witnesses, no guarantee that they would not, in some way or other, lose their lives, seeing the friends of Dinuzulu had the right, under the law, of having interviews with him from time to time. As for the witnesses for the defence, they spoke without that peculiar sense of dread which oppressed Native witnesses for the Crown, although every assurance and visible means of protection were afforded the latter by the Government. The spectacle, moreover, of these witnesses being liable to the menacing influences of Dinuzulu and his friends, was extremely detrimental to the prestige of the Government, especially in a country occupied by over a million warlike savages.
To counteract this state of affairs, it became necessary, in the absence of explicit provision in the law, to take certain administrative action which, however, was at once strongly objected to by counsel for the defence. For instance, martial law, proclaimed on the 3rd December, was maintained without a break until the 11th of August, 1908, although the primary reason on account of which it had been promulgated, had ceased to exist within ten or twelve days of such promulgation. The effect of this law, operating as it did in Zululand alone, was to confer on the Crown the right of vetoing entry of any and all persons into that territory, whose actions, however well-intentioned, might have had the effect, in the opinion of Government, of keeping alive the unrest and once again endangering the peace, besides emboldening outstanding ringleaders to remain still longer at large. That a number of Dinuzulu's legal advisers, whilst vigorously procuring evidence in Zululand, would have promoted unrest, quite apart from tending seriously to defeat the ends of justice, needs only to be stated to be accepted by those who do not happen to belong to that admirable but sometimes rather indiscreet profession.[332]
It was not until the beginning of March that the murderers had all been arrested, and not till the 10th of the same month that Cakijana had surrendered.
Whilst the examination was proceeding, the Magistrates at Nkandhla (B. Colenbrander), Nongoma (G.W. Armstrong), and elsewhere, were actively engaged accumulating evidence on behalf of the Crown, most of which, of course, was given under martial law, though not on that account improperly obtained. It is on record that such prominent witnesses as Mangati, Cakijana, Rolela, Mayatana, Mgunguluzo and others all gave their evidence voluntarily.
Another complaint was that a number of witnesses, whose evidence had been taken, were not called at the preparatory examination. It was consequently felt that the Crown was in possession of information, possibly of vital importance, which was being withheld, with the object of in some way injuring the prisoner. This is seen at once, by anyone acquainted with criminal procedure, to be futile if not frivolous, because, under the Ordinance of 1845, under which the preparatory examination was held, the greatest latitude is given to the Crown, particularly where crimes are only supposed to have been committed. It must be remembered that, although there was reason for believing that Dinuzulu had committed two, three or more specific acts of high treason, there was also ground for supposing that a number of other similar offences had been committed. Such inference, to anyone who has read the foregoing pages, especially those describing the state of affairs at Usutu, is a perfectly legitimate one, especially as Dinuzulu was known to have been surreptitiously communicating with the Chiefs of various other tribes throughout Natal and Zululand ever since the proclamation of the Poll Tax Act in 1905. Nothing, then, was more imperative from the point of view of the Crown, than not only to confine attention to such overt acts as had already come to notice, but to make special, persevering, and exhaustive efforts to probe to the bottom Dinuzulu's conduct throughout the whole period of unrest. The Attorney-General and the Justice of the Peace, and all those working under these officers, were within their rights in doing what they did, as reference to the Ordinance would show. Indeed, when one comes to go into this side of the case, he cannot but wonder that the prosecution was, in some respects, as lenient and considerate as it was.
The appointment of a special officer to hold the inquiry was necessary, as, for political reasons, it was desirable to remove the prisoner from the district in which the various alleged offences had been committed to another. The case, being an extraordinary one, of far greater gravity than the one that occurred in 1888, it is not surprising the Government did not foresee that the various difficulties above referred to were likely to arise. Nor, for the same reason, could they anticipate, except in a vague way, the profound effect that would be created by Dinuzulu on Native witnesses of Zululand and Natal, even when he was in custody.[333] In attempting resolutely, though not illegally, to secure all rights and privileges, the impression was given to the Defence that the endeavours of the Crown were dictated more by bias and prejudice, than by a desire to ensure justice being done. As the Crown was so active, and quite properly so, it is not to be surprised at that the Defence displayed a like degree of energy.
Ever since the arrest, it was the intention of the Government that the Zulu Chief should be tried by a civil tribunal. It would, indeed, have been possible to have arraigned him before a general or special court-martial. Such procedure, however, was not at any time contemplated. In view of the great length of the case, it was impossible to bring it before the Supreme Court, firstly, because that court had quite as much work to do as it could manage, secondly, because, under the law constituting it, it would have been necessary to empanel a jury, and, with a jury of Europeans in a purely Native case and one which had already excited so much animus against Dinuzulu, the prisoner might have incurred serious risk. Instances had already occurred in preceding years of miscarriages of justice, just as they have arisen in other parts of South Africa, owing to jurymen allowing their feelings to get the better of them. In these circumstances, it was decided to create a new court consisting of three judges, similar to the one which, in 1888, tried the same man and his uncles—a court which, as far as could be seen, gave every satisfaction both to the Crown and to the defence.
The Bill creating this court[334] was brought before Parliament in July, i.e. shortly before the conclusion of Dinuzulu's examination. It became law[335] on the 15th August. The judges appointed were: Sir William Smith, Kt., Puisne Judge, Transvaal Supreme Court; Henri G. Boshoff, Puisne Judge, Native High Court, Natal; and Henrique C. Shepstone, C.M.G., ex-Secretary for Native Affairs, Natal.
It may not be out of place here to call attention to machinery in another part of the Empire provided to meet contingencies similar in some respects to those which confronted Natal in 1907. It is common knowledge that political offences occur from time to time within the Indian Empire. Only a few months ago, the world was startled to hear of a bomb being thrown at His Majesty's representative, with severe bodily injury to himself and fatal results to one of his attendants. In regard to such crimes, delay of a year in bringing the accused to trial could not occur. The procedure is governed by Act of India, No. 14, 1908, which provides for the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence, or any other Magistrate to whom the case may be transferred, holding an inquiry on receipt of an order in writing to that effect from the Governor-General-in-Council or the Local Government. Such inquiry is for the object of seeing if "the evidence offered upon the part of the prosecution is sufficient to put the accused upon his trial" for the offence, and the Magistrate "shall, for that purpose, record on oath the evidence of all such persons as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and may record any statement of the accused, if voluntarily tendered by him." The Act goes on to provide that "the accused shall not be present during the inquiry ... unless the magistrate so directs, nor shall he be represented by a pleader during any such inquiry, nor shall any person have any right of access to the court of the magistrate while he is holding such inquiry." If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to put accused upon his trial for the offence specified, he frames a charge, makes an order directing the latter to be sent to the High Court for trial, and causes him to be supplied with a copy of the order, of the charge, and of the evidence taken. The Magistrate, moreover, has the power of examining supplementary witnesses after the order for trial, and before the commencement thereof.
Thus, we see, the Indian legislation governs, not only the trial, but the whole of the preliminary examination, and accords the Crown far greater facilities than were enjoyed by the Attorney-General in Natal under the Ordinance. Provision, such as this, would go a long way towards removing the various obstacles encountered by the Crown in the Dinuzulu affair. Under the Indian law, no martial law is required to exclude the accused or his lawyer from being present during the inquiry.[336] There is not a word in the Indian Act about the existence of martial law, and yet the procedure provided is of a far more rigid, exclusive and seemingly unjust character than what counsel for the defence took exception to in Natal. The Indian Act further stipulates that all persons sent for trial shall be tried by a special bench of the High Court, consisting of three judges, and that "no trial before the special bench shall be by jury."
The Indian Court, although a special one, is always composed of judges of the High Court, and, therefore, prepared to come automatically into existence as soon as the occasion arises. In the case of the Natal Act, the court ceased to exist when the objects for which it had been appointed had been served, consequently, should similar offences arise in the future, a fresh Act would be required.
It would seem, then, that the Union Government would be well-advised to pass an Act similar in principle to the one above referred to. By so doing, the disagreeable position Natal found herself in during the trial of Dinuzulu would be largely mitigated by eliminating, ab initio, elements of discord and all appearance of injustice.
An Act indemnifying all authorities and persons acting under them, in regard to acts during the existence of martial law, similar to that of 1906, was passed by the Legislature and assented to by the Governor in August, immediately after which martial law was revoked (11th). A decision was come to at the same time to appoint Mr. R.H. Addison, acting Magistrate at Nongoma, Chief over the Usutu (Zulu) tribe, until the result of Dinuzulu's trial had been made known. "The appointment of a European Magistrate as Chief over a Native tribe, though not frequent, is occasionally resorted to as a temporary measure when, in circumstances like the present, it is considered desirable to keep in close communication with the tribe, and there is no Native headman through whom this can satisfactorily be done."[337]
After Dinuzulu's counsel had collected all the evidence they were able and wished to do in Zululand, and their client's case had otherwise been sufficiently prepared, arrangements were made for the Special Court to begin its session at Greytown, viz. on the 3rd November. The Town Hall was suitably fitted up for the purpose. The venue was appropriate, seeing it was in the district in which the Rebellion had started. Besides Dinuzulu, there were five other Natives to be indicted. A beginning was made with the case of Cakijana, charged with high treason. After a trial extending over a week, the prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with hard labour. Jombolwana, charged with the murder of Chief Sitshitshili, was next tried. The sentence of death passed on him was carried out in December.
The trial of Dinuzulu, the most important event that had ever occurred in Greytown, began on the 19th of November. The accused had, however, already pleaded on the 10th to an indictment of high treason, consisting of twenty-three counts. His plea was 'not guilty' to each. The Attorney-General (The Hon. T.F. Carter, K.C.) with Messrs. D. Calder, W.S. Bigby and G.E. Robinson, appeared for the Crown, whilst the Hon. W.P. Schreiner, K.C., with Messrs. E. Renaud and R.C.A. Samuelson, were for the defence. Among those specially, though unofficially, concerned were Misses Harriette E. and Agnes M. Colenso.
Although a large number of European witnesses gave evidence, the case was purely a Native one. The proceedings were conducted in English and Zulu, the principal interpreter being Mr. J.W. Cross, J.P., one of the senior Magistrates of the Colony, and Magistrate at Greytown, as will be remembered, when the Rebellion broke out.
In view of the large numbers of witnesses required by the prosecution and the defence, and the long duration of the trial, it became necessary for separate camps to be erected for them.
At the beginning of the trials, considerable interest was taken in the proceedings by residents of Greytown and neighbourhood. This, however, soon began to wear off until Dinuzulu himself gave evidence and, later on, when counsel for the Crown and for the Defence were addressing.
The Court adjourned on the 22nd December, and resumed on the 4th January, 1909. The prosecution closed on the 18th. Beginning on the following day, the defence terminated on the 23rd February. By this time, the Court had sat sixty-seven days; ninety-five witnesses had been examined for the Crown, and sixty-eight for the Defence.
Of the witnesses called for the prosecution, forty-seven were Europeans and forty-eight Natives. Of those for the defence, sixty-four were Natives, including Dinuzulu (who took no less than ten and a half days to give his evidence), and four Europeans. The evidence amounted to no less than 6,148 typed folio pages.
Mr. Carter addressed on the 24th and 25th, and Mr. Schreiner, beginning on the 25th, concluded on the 2nd March.
Judgment was delivered on the 3rd, that is, on the seventy-third day's sitting. The prisoner was found guilty of high treason: (a) by harbouring and concealing Bambata's wife and children for over fifteen months; (b) by harbouring and assisting the ringleaders Bambata and Mangati during the actual progress of the Rebellion; and (c) by harbouring and concealing 125 named and other rebels at various times between May, 1906 (when the Rebellion was at its height), and the date of his arrest.
With regard to the most serious count of which he was found not guilty, one of the judges felt it necessary to say: "The matter has given me a great deal of concern, and, up to this very morning, the thought has occurred to me again and again whether it would not be my duty to stand out from the majority of the Court in the conclusion to which they have arrived on this point." There "certainly is evidence which makes one hesitate very much, as far as I am concerned, in giving the prisoner a clean bill."
| HON. W.P. SCHREINER, K.C., M.LA. | MR. E. RENAUD, | DINUZULU. | MR. R.C. SAMUELSON, | MISS H.E. COLENSO. |
| Senior Counsel for the Defence. | Advocate. | Attorney. |
The Attorney-General had already withdrawn two counts whilst some of the others unavoidably overlapped, consequently it was felt unnecessary to consider them. In respect of one, the Judge President said as "two of the alleged conspirators are to be tried before this court ... I think it better that we should give no finding." Dinuzulu, after admitting a previous conviction for high treason in April, 1889, (his age then being between twenty-one and twenty-two) was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in respect of (b) and (c) "to date from the 9th day of December, 1907" (i.e. the date of his surrender), and a fine of £100 or twelve months' imprisonment in respect of (a), the "twelve months to be cumulative, not concurrent."
Thus ended a State trial which will long be remembered in South Africa. Remarkable for its intricacy and duration, it was even more so for the deep and sustained interest aroused by its various issues among all sections of the community, in Natal and Zululand, throughout South Africa, and in England and elsewhere. Although practically the whole of the evidence for the Crown and the Defence was laid by the press before the public, attention tended to become more and more focussed on the judgment of the court, a judgment from which there was no appeal. And it was generally anticipated and hoped that such judgment would supply a complete and decisive answer to the question as to the exact extent to which Dinuzulu was implicated in the Rebellion of 1906. It is, however, impossible to deny that the judgment, notwithstanding the honest, persevering and exhaustive efforts of the Bench and the Bar, failed to carry conviction home to many who, having followed the proceedings, were at least familiar with the principal features. Convicted on but three counts (and these not including the most important) out of twenty-three, Dinuzulu was commonly believed to have escaped far more lightly than he deserved, or than the evidence appeared to permit. But, owing to the extreme length and complexity of the case, people felt they had to be content with the result, as there was neither opportunity nor inclination to examine the masses of evidence for themselves in detail.
The result of the conviction, as anticipated by the President when passing sentence, was that Dinuzulu not only forfeited the position of Government Induna, but was formally deposed from his chieftainship.
To have left standing the Usutu kraal or the house constructed for him at Eshowe, would have been but to perpetuate an impression amongst a credulous people, that a Chief, convicted for the second time of high treason, was returning to the country. It was because the Natal Government could not for a moment contemplate such contingency that the establishments were either removed or dismantled. Other action, moreover, had to be taken. When the ex-Chief was arrested, as previously pointed out, headmen were appointed to take charge of the tribe. The arrangement, however, was purely temporary. But with the deposition of the Chief, it became necessary to introduce some more permanent and final arrangement. It was decided to break the tribe up into three parts, and attach a section to each of three adjoining tribes. Under the circumstances, the settlement gave satisfaction to all concerned, and has continued to work well from that day to this.
On the conclusion of the trial, the President of the Court (Sir William Smith) returned to the Transvaal, his place being taken by Mr. Justice Dove Wilson of the Natal Supreme Court; Mr. Schreiner, too, went back to Cape Town. Dinuzulu was removed to Pietermaritzburg.
It is but right here to call attention to the fact that notwithstanding the consummate ability with which Mr. Schreiner had defended Dinuzulu, necessitating absence from his practice at Cape Town for a period of over four months—thereby, no doubt, involving him in considerable pecuniary loss—the whole of his services in connection with the trial were given gratis, an act which cannot but redound to his credit, especially when one considers the inability of the prisoner or his friends to pay such heavy charges as Mr. Schreiner might very properly have made.
Instead of Greytown, the venue for the remaining cases became Pietermaritzburg. Dinuzulu's indunas Mankulumana and Mgwaqo, also charged with high treason, were tried on the 9th and 10th of March, the Attorney-General prosecuting and Mr. Renaud appearing on behalf of the accused. Both were found guilty of three counts in the indictment. The former was sentenced to nine, and the latter to fifteen, months—in respect of two counts—whilst both were sentenced to a fine of £50 or eight months' imprisonment in respect of the third. In passing the sentences, account was taken of the fact that they had already been fifteen months in gaol.
As soon as the Union of the South African Colonies became imminent, and shortly after the conclusion of Dinuzulu's trial, the Natal Ministry proposed to the future Prime Minister the desirability of removing Dinuzulu to some suitable part of South Africa, beyond the borders of Natal. It was recommended that such portion of the sentence as remained unexpired on the advent of Union should be remitted on condition that the foregoing settlement was agreed to by the prisoner. The suggestion at once met with the approval of General Botha. Dinuzulu was thereupon taken from Pietermaritzburg to Newcastle, so as to be in readiness to conform to the terms of his proposed release. He, however, was not made acquainted with the reasons for his removal to Newcastle, except that that place was regarded as more beneficial for his health than Pietermaritzburg had appeared to be. Union came into force on the 31st May, 1910. Towards the end of that month, Mr. J.C. Krogh, one of the senior Magistrates of the Transvaal and formerly Special Commissioner in Swaziland, was instructed by General Botha to proceed to Newcastle and there, assisted by the Magistrate, Mr. B. Colenbrander, interview Dinuzulu with the object of placing before him, and securing his acceptance of, the following proposition, which the ex-Chief was told General Botha was prepared to recommend to the Governor-General:
That he should be released from prison and the remainder of his sentence remitted on the following conditions:
(a) Acceptance of domicile in the Transvaal at a place to be put at his disposal by the Government.
(b) That, as from the date of release, his salary of £500 per annum be again paid to him during good behaviour.
The result of the interview was that Dinuzulu unreservedly accepted the conditions, and signed a formal document to that effect. On the 31st, the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council having been obtained, and with the knowledge of Dinuzulu's friends (Miss Colenso and the Hon. W.P. Schreiner), Dinuzulu was released and left Newcastle by the afternoon train for Pretoria. At Pretoria, he came under the Native Affairs Department of the Union, it being arranged that all instructions would, in future, be received by him from or through that Department.
Steps were taken to secure a farm on which he, his family and immediate dependants could reside, with sufficient ground for agriculture, grazing, etc. Some difficulty was at first experienced in finding land suitable for one who, like Dinuzulu, had lived most of his life in the mild climate of northern Zululand. The farm Rietfontein, seven or eight miles from Middleburg, was eventually selected. To this he proceeded early in 1911, accompanied by certain members of his family; his induna Mankulumana was also permitted to join him.
The release, prior to expiration of the sentence and on the terms above set forth, was generally approved in Natal, as also throughout South Africa, and in England.
Almost simultaneously with Dinuzulu's expatriation, those Native rebels who were still in prison, including the ones at St. Helena, were released and allowed to return to their districts, except such ex-Chiefs as Ndhlovu and Meseni, who were obliged to take up their residence in districts other than their own.