Cetshwayo’s first answer is merely one acknowledging the message, and regretting the truth of the accusation brought by it. He allows that the young men deserve punishment, and he engages to send indunas of his own to the Natal Government on the subject; but he deprecates the matter being looked upon in a more serious light than as the “act of rash boys,” who in their zeal for their father’s house (? honour) did not think what they were doing.
About this date, August, 1878, when all sorts of wild reports were flying about, in and out of official documents, relative to Cetshwayo’s supposed warlike preparations, he had ordered that none of his people should carry arms on pain of death.
This was in consequence of a circumstance which had occurred some months before (January, 1878), when during the Umkosi, or feast of first-fruits, a great Zulu gathering which annually takes place at the king’s kraal, two of the regiments fell out and finally came to blows, resulting in the death of some men on either side. Sir B. Frere says, in his correspondence with the Bishop (p. 4), that many hundred men were killed on this occasion; but Mr. F. Colenso, who happened to be there a few days after the fight, heard from a white man, who had helped to remove the dead, that about fifty were killed. In consequence of this, “an order had gone forth, forbidding native Zulus, when travelling, to carry arms, nothing but switches being allowed. A fire took place, which burned the grass over Panda’s grave,[90] and the doctors declared that the spirits of Dingane and Chaka had stated that they view with surprise and disgust the conduct of the Zulus at the present day in fighting when called before their king; that this was the reason Panda’s grave was burned; and such things would continue until they learned to be peaceful among themselves, and wait until they are attacked by other natives before spilling blood.”
Cetshwayo’s next message, September 9th (2260, p. 32), after he had inquired into the matter of Sihayo’s sons, acknowledges again that they had done wrong, but observes that he was glad to find that they had hurt no one belonging to the English. What they had done was done without his knowledge. The request of the Natal Government concerning the surrender of the offenders, he said, should be laid before the great men of the Zulu people, to be decided upon by them; he could not do it alone.
He finally, with full and courteous apologies in the same tone, begs that the Natal Government will accept, instead of the persons of the young men, a fine of fifty pounds, which he sent down by his messengers, but which was promptly refused. Sir Henry Bulwer appears to have been inclined to allow of the substitution of a larger fine for the surrender of the culprits (2222, p. 173); but Sir B. Frere insists on severer measures, saying: “I think it quite necessary that the delivery up to justice of the offenders in this case should have been demanded,[91] and should now be peremptorily insisted on, together with a fine for the delay in complying with the reiterated demand.”
John Dunn, who is supposed to have advised the king to send money as an atonement, affirms that the invasion had been mutual, fugitives from justice having been fetched out of Zululand by Natal officers; and he (Dunn) asks whether outraged husbands, even amongst civilised people, are prone to pay much respect to the rights of nations when upon the track of their unfaithful spouses. Plainly, neither he nor the king looked upon the matter in so serious a light as Sir Bartle Frere chose to do when he said, September 30th, 1878 (2220, p. 280), “and, unless apologised and atoned for by compliance with the Lieut.-Governor’s demands (?) that the leader of the murderous gangs shall be given up to justice, it will be necessary to send to the Zulu king an ultimatum, which must put an end to pacific relations with our neighbours.”[92]
Sir M. Hicks-Beach, in reply to Sir B. Frere’s last-quoted despatch, writes, November 21st: “The abduction and murder of the Zulu woman who had taken refuge in Natal is undoubtedly a serious matter, and no sufficient reparation for it has yet been made. But I observe that Cetshwayo has expressed his regret for this occurrence; and although the compensation offered by him was inadequate, there would seem to have been nothing in his conduct with regard to it which would preclude the hope of a satisfactory arrangement.”—(P. P. [C. 2220], p. 320).
But the whole of Sir Bartle Frere’s statements at this period concerning Cetshwayo are one-sided, exaggerated, or entirely imaginary accusations, which come in the first instance with force from a man of his importance, but for which not the slightest grounds can be traced in any reliable or official source. He brings grave charges against the king, which are absolutely contradicted by the official reports from which he draws his information; he places before the public as actual fact what, on investigation, is plainly nothing more than his own opinion of what Cetshwayo thinks, wishes, or intends, and what his thoughts, wishes, and intentions may be at a future period. Every circumstance is twisted into a proof of his inimical intentions towards Natal, the worst motives are taken for granted in all he does. When the king’s messages were sent through the ordinary native messengers between him and the Government of Natal, they are termed mere “verbal” messages (as what else should they be?), not “satisfactory or binding;” when they were sent through Mr. John Dunn they were called “unofficial,” although Mr. Dunn had been repeatedly recognised, and by Sir B. Frere himself, as an official means of communication with Cetshwayo on matters of grave importance; and, when Mr. Dunn writes, on his own account, his opinion that the “boys” will not be given up, Sir B. Frere calls his letter “a similar informal message (i.e. from the king), couched in insolent and defiant terms.” In nothing that passed between the king and the Government of Natal during this whole period is there one single word, on Cetshwayo’s part, which could possibly be thus described. There are, indeed, many apologies and entreaties to the Government to be satisfied with some other atonement for the fault committed than the surrender of the culprits, and there is a great deal from various sources, official and otherwise, about cattle collected, even beyond the demands of the Government, as a propitiation; but of Sir B. Frere’s “semi-sarcastic, insolent, and defiant” messages not one word.
It would take many pages to point out how utterly misleading is every word spoken by the High Commissioner on this subject, but to those who are curious in the matter, and in proof of the truth of our present statements, we can only recommend the South African Blue-books of 1878-79. We cannot, however, better illustrate our meaning than by a quotation from Lord Blachford (Daily News, March 26th, 1872): “What did Sir B. Frere say to all this? He was really ashamed to answer that he did not know. He had studied the series of despatches in which Sir B. Frere defended his conduct, and he willingly acknowledged the exuberance of literary skill which they exhibited. But when he tried to grapple with them he felt like a man who was defending himself with a stick against a cloud of locusts. He might knock down one, and knock down another, but ‘the cry is still they come.’ His only consolation was, that they did not appear to have convinced Her Majesty’s Government, whose replies were from beginning to end a series of cautions, qualifications, and protests.”
On turning to the subject of the robber chief, Umbilini, and his raids, we are at once confronted by the fact that he was not a Zulu at all, but a Swazi, and a claimant to the Swazi throne. His claim had not been approved by the majority of the Swazi nation, and his brother Umbandeni, the present king, was appointed instead. Umbilini, however, was not a man to quietly sink into an inferior position, and having taken possession, with his followers, of some rocky caves in the borderland, forming an almost impregnable fortress, he lived for many years, much in the fashion of the border freebooters of whose doings we read in Scottish history, making raids upon his neighbours on all sides, and carrying off cattle, women, and children. His expeditions were most frequently directed towards the party against him in his own country, but neither his Boer nor Zulu neighbours escaped entirely. On first leaving Swaziland he went to offer homage to the Zulu king, and was given land to settle upon in Zululand. No doubt Cetshwayo looked upon a warrior of Umbilini’s known prowess as rather an important vassal, especially in the event of a war between him and his ancient enemies the Swazis, in which case Umbilini’s adherence would probably divide the enemy amongst themselves. But he appears to have been in perpetual trouble on account of his turbulent vassal, and to have given him up altogether at one time. After a raid committed by him upon the Dutch, the latter applied to Cetshwayo to have him delivered up to them. “I could not do this,” says Cetshwayo; “I should have got a bad name if I had done so, and people would have said it was not good to konza (pay homage) to Cetshwayo. I therefore refused, but paid one hundred head of cattle for the offence he had committed;”[93] and Cetshwayo’s own account to Mr. Fynney is as follows (1961):