History of the Zulu war and its origin

by Frances Ellen Colenso

So much for our dealings with the Zulus of Natal; and even less can be said for us concerning those over the border.

Until quite lately the practice existed in the colony of surrendering to Zulu demands refugee women, as well as cattle, as “property,” under an order from the Natal Government, which was in force at the time of Sir H. Bulwer’s arrival, but was at some time after rescinded.[88]

It was well known that, by the laws of Zululand, the offence of a woman’s escaping from her husband with another man was punishable by death, therefore unhappy creatures thus situated were delivered up by the Natal Government to certain death, and this practice had been continued through a course of many years.

The law being altered in this respect, and cattle only returned, Sir H. Bulwer writes, on February 3rd, 1877: “Some few weeks ago I had occasion to send a message to Cetywayo on account of the forcible removal from Natal territory of a Zulu girl, who had lately taken refuge in it from the Zulu country. A party of Zulus had crossed the Tugela River in pursuit, and taken the girl by force back to Zululand. I therefore sent to inform Cetywayo of this lawless act on the part of some of his subjects” (1776, pp. 86, 87); and Cetshwayo replies with thanks, saying that he knew nothing previously of what had happened, and that “should anything of the same kind take place to-morrow he (the Governor of Natal) must still open my ears with what is done by my people.”

This is apparently all. There is no attempt to make a serious national matter of it; no demand for the surrender of the offenders, nor for the payment of a fine. Nor is there even a warning that any future occurrence of the same description will be viewed in a more severe light. Sir Henry “informs” Cetshwayo of what has taken place, and Cetshwayo politely acknowledges the information, and that the action taken by his people deserves censure. “I do not send and take by force,” he says; “why should my people do so? It is not right.”

Eighteen months later, on July 28th, 1878, a similar case was reported. A wife of the chief Sihayo had left him and escaped into Natal. She was followed by a party of Zulus, under Mehlokazulu, the chief son of Sihayo, and his brother, seized at the kraal where she had taken refuge, and carried back to Zululand, where she was put to death, in accordance with Zulu law.

The Zulus who seized her did no harm to Natal people or property; in fact their only fault towards England was that of following and seizing her on Natal soil, an act which for many years, and until quite lately, they would have been permitted to do, and assisted in doing, by the border Government officials. A week later the same young men, with two other brothers and an uncle, captured in like manner another refugee wife of Sihayo, in the company of the young man with whom she had fled. This woman was also carried back, and is supposed to have been put to death likewise; the young man with her, although guilty in Zulu eyes of a most heinous crime, punishable with death, was safe from them on English soil—they did not touch him. But by our own practice for years past, of surrendering female refugees as property, we had taught the Zulus that we regarded women as cattle.

While fully acknowledging the savagery of the young men’s actions, and the necessity of putting a stop to such for the future, it must be conceded that, having so long countenanced the like, we should have given fair notice that, for the future, it would be an act of aggression on us for a refugee of either sex to be followed into our territory, before proceeding to stronger measures.

Sir Henry Bulwer, indeed, though taking a decided view of the young men’s offence, plainly understood that it was an individual fault, and not a political action for the performance of which the king was responsible. “There is no reason whatsoever as yet to believe that these acts have been committed with the consent or knowledge of the king,”[89] he says (2220, p. 125), and his message to Cetshwayo merely requests that he will send in the ringleaders of the party to be tried by the law of the colony.

On a previous occasion the king had, of his own accord, sent a Zulu named Jolwana to the Natal Government to be punished by it for the murder of a white man in the Zulu country. Jolwana was returned upon his hands with the message that he could not be tried in Natal as he was a Zulu subject. Under these circumstances it was not unnatural that Cetshwayo should have taken the opportunity, apparently offered him by the use of the word request, of substituting some other method of apology for the offence committed than that of delivering up the young men, who, as he afterwards said, he was afraid would be “sjambokked” (flogged).