3. “With reference to these fire-arms, defying the authority of the magistrate, and once insulting the messenger.”
4. “Refusing to appear before” the Supreme Chief when summoned, “excusing his refusal by evasion and falsehood,” and “insulting his messenger.”
5. “Directing his cattle and other effects to be taken out of the colony under an armed escort.”
6. Causing the death of Her Majesty’s subjects at the Bushman’s River Pass.
It is plain to the most casual observation that none of the first five accusations, even if fully proved, refer to crimes punishable by death in any civilised land; and it is difficult to see how the Chief could reasonably be considered responsible for the sixth and last, seeing that the action took place in his absence, against his express commands, and to his great regret.
Returning to the five first-named offences, we find that the statements contained in the second and third charges are the only proofs alleged of the truth of the first—to which therefore we need give no further attention—the magistrate himself stating that “this was the first time the prisoner ever refused to appear before him when ordered to do so;” and this was the first time for more than twenty years that he had been reported for any fault whatever.
Proceeding to charge No. 2, we find that the prisoner entirely denied having encouraged his young men to possess themselves of guns; nor could he justly be said to have even “permitted” them to do so merely because he did not actively exert himself to prevent it. The men went away from home, worked, were paid for their services in guns, or purchased them with their earnings, without consulting him. He had never considered it to be part of his duty to search the huts of his people for unregistered guns, but had simply left them to suffer the consequences of breaking the laws of the colony, if discovered. It is also to be observed that amongst the seven sons captured with him only one had a gun at a time when certainly, if ever, they would have carried them; which does not look as though he had greatly encouraged them to possess themselves of firearms.
But if the second charge, in a very modified form, might be considered a true one, yet Langalibalele had done no worse in that respect than most of the other chiefs in the colony. In proof of this assertion may be brought “Perrin’s Register” for the years 1871-2-3—the years during which a large number of natives received payment for their services at the diamond-fields in guns. From this register it appears that the total number of guns registered in eight of the principal northern tribes of the colony—the two first-named chiefs being indunas to the very magistrate who complained of Langalibalele—was as follows:
| Huts. | Guns registered in | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1871. | 1872. | 1873. | ||
| Ndomba | 1190 | — | — | — |
| Faku | 2071 | — | 2 | — |
| Mganu | 1277 | — | — | — |
| Pakade | 2222 | 1 | — | 1 |
| Zikali | 1651 | — | 1 | — |
| Nodada | 3000 | — | 1 | 2 |
| Putini | 1239 | — | 1 | — |
| Langalibalele | 2244 | — | 9 | 4 |
Furthermore, any fault with respect to the guns was not an offence under Kafir Law, and could only have been tried in the Colonial Court under the ordinary law of the colony.