Sir Bartle Frere of course takes the strongest possible view of the matter against the king, and speaks of his having killed Zulu converts (2220, p. 270), “at first rarely, as if with reluctance, and a desire to conceal what he had ordered, and to shift the responsibility to other shoulders, latterly more frequently, openly, and as an avowed part of a general policy for re-establishing the system of Chaka and Dingane.” This little phrase is of a slightly imaginative nature, resting on no (produced) evidence. It is, in fact, a “statement.”[106]
Sir Henry Bulwer’s reply—November 18th, 1878 (2222, p. 171)—which forms an able refutation of various statements of Sir B. Frere, contains the following sentence: “I took some pains to find out how the case really stood, and ascertained that the number of natives, either converts or living on mission stations, who had been killed, was three. I have never heard since that time of any other mission natives being killed.... I was, therefore, surprised, on reading your Excellency’s despatch, to see what Messrs. Oftebro and Staven had said. I have since made particular inquiries on that point, but have failed to obtain any information showing that more than three mission natives have been killed. Among others to whom I have spoken is the Rev. Mr. Robertson, of Zululand, who was in ’Maritzburg a few weeks ago. He told me that he had not heard of any other than the three cases.”
Sir Bartle Frere replies, December 6th, 1878 (2222, p. 175):[107] “I have since made further inquiry (he does not say what), and have no doubt that though His Excellency may possibly be right as to the number regarding which there is judicial evidence (Sir H. Bulwer plainly decides that there was no evidence at all); the missionaries had every reason to believe that the number slain on account of their inclination to Christianity was considerably greater than three. One gentleman, who had better means of obtaining the truth than anyone else, told me he had no doubt the number of converts killed was considerable.”
This gentleman, Sir Bartle Frere assures us, “knows the Zulus probably better than any living European; he is himself an old resident in Zululand, and a man above all suspicion of exaggeration or misrepresentation(!). He gave me this information, under stipulation that his name should not be mentioned, otherwise it would, I am sure, at once be accepted as a guarantee for the accuracy of his statements.”
With such phrases, “I have no doubt,” “every reason to believe,” “I feel sure,” etc. etc., has Sir Bartle Frere continually maligned the character of the Zulu king, called since the war by Mr. John Dunn, “the most injured man in South Africa.”
One is rather puzzled who the man may be to whom Sir Bartle Frere gives so high a character, his opinion of which he evidently expects will quite satisfy his readers. We should much like to have the gentleman’s name. The number of gentlemen “long resident in Zululand” are not so many as to leave a wide field for conjecture. Besides the missionaries, the only names that occur to us to which the phrase can apply are those of Mr. John Shepstone, Mr. John Dunn, and Mr. Robertson.
The only point in the indictment against Cetshwayo which we have now to consider, is that of the killing of girls under the Zulu marriage law, and the reply to Sir Henry Bulwer’s remonstrance on the point, which Sir Bartle Frere speaks of in his final memorandum as expressed “in terms of unprecedented insolence and defiance;” while The Times of Natal (generally recognised as the Government organ) went still further, and has twice charged the Zulu king with sending repeatedly, insolent messages to the Natal Government. As to the repetition of the offence, it need only be said that there is no foundation in the Blue-books for the assertion. And as to this particular offence it is enough to say that no notice had been taken of it to Cetshwayo himself, till two years afterwards it was unearthed, and charged upon him, as above, by the High Commissioner, notwithstanding that, whatever it may have been, it had been subsequently condoned by friendly messages from this Government.
The marriage law of Zululand is thus described by Sir T. Shepstone (1137, p. 21): “The Zulu country is but sparsely inhabited when compared with Natal, and the increase of its population is checked more by its peculiar marriage regulations than by the exodus of refugees to surrounding governments. Both boys and girls are formed into regiments, and are not allowed to marry without special leave from the king, or until the regiments to which they belong are fortunate enough to receive his dispensation. Caprice or state reasons occasionally delay this permission, and it sometimes happens that years pass before it is given. Contravention of these regulations is visited by the severest penalties.”[108]
The history of the case which we are now considering may be given in the following extracts: