History of the Zulu war and its origin

by Frances Ellen Colenso

There had been serious and disturbing reports of a Zulu force being assembled on the Tugela River, for the ostensible purpose of hunting, with reference to which Sir H. Bulwer writes to Sir M. Hicks-Beach, 14th September, “on the subject of the gathering of a Zulu force within a short distance of our border across the Tugela. You will learn from these papers that the gathering has broken up, and the Zulus returned home” (ibid. p. 270).

Sir M. Hicks-Beach, on October 17th, replies to Sir B. Frere’s despatches of 14th and 23rd September, that “arrangements will be made for the early despatch of some additional officers for special duty. Her Majesty’s Government are, however, not prepared to comply with the request for a reinforcement of troops. All the information that has hitherto reached them with respect to the position of affairs in Zululand appears to them to justify a confident hope that, by the exercise of prudence, and by meeting the Zulus in a spirit of forbearance and reasonable compromise, it will be possible to avert the very serious evil of a war with Cetywayo; and they cannot but think that the forces now at your disposal in South Africa, together with the additional officers about to be sent, should suffice to meet any other emergency that may arise, without a further increase to the Imperial troops” (ibid. p. 273).

On September 30th, Sir B. Frere writes from Pietermaritzburg: “I regret that I find the position of affairs in this colony far more critical even than I expected;” and, after a very exaggerated description of the state of affairs, he says: “An attempt of native tribes to combine to resist the white man and drive him back has been long foreseen. There can be no doubt that this design is now in process of attempted execution” (ibid. pp. 278-82).

Of the truth of this startling assertion, let Sir H. Bulwer’s despatches, as well as after-events, speak.

Enclosed in this despatch of Sir B. Frere is General Thesiger’s memorandum on the military requirements, and his sketch for a defensive scheme for Natal, for which he requires “6000 natives, 600 mounted men, 6 guns, and 3 battalions of British infantry;” but he remarks: “I cannot, however, conceal from myself that security from invasion depends almost entirely upon the forbearance of Cetywayo;” and says, “for defensive purposes alone, therefore, Natal and Transvaal colonies require 3 battalions of infantry in addition to what they have already got” (ibid. pp. 285, 286).

In reply, Sir M. Hicks-Beach writes, 21st November: “The several circumstances which you have reported as tending to cause an open rupture do not appear, in themselves, to present any difficulties which are not capable of a peaceful solution.... On a full review, therefore, of all the circumstances reported by you, and influenced by the strong representations made by Lord Chelmsford as to the insufficiency of his present force to ensure the safety of the European residents in Natal and the Transvaal, Her Majesty’s Government have felt themselves justified in directing that further reinforcements of troops, as well as the additional officers recently placed under orders for special service, should be sent out to Natal, and the necessary steps will at once be taken for this purpose. But in conveying to you the decision at which, in compliance with your urgent representations, Her Majesty’s Government have arrived, it is my duty to impress upon you that in supplying these reinforcements it is the desire of Her Majesty’s Government not to furnish means for a campaign of invasion and conquest, but to afford such protection as may be necessary at this juncture to the lives and property of the colonists. Though the present aspect of affairs is menacing in a high degree, I can by no means arrive at the conclusion that war with the Zulus should be unavoidable, and I am confident that you, in concert with Sir H. Bulwer, will use every effort to overcome the existing difficulties by judgment and forbearance, and to avoid an evil so much to be deprecated as a Zulu war” (ibid. pp. 320, 321).

On November 11th, the Lieut.-General says that he has just been permitted by the Natal Government to raise and organise 7000 natives, and ventures “to express an opinion that the demand for two extra battalions cannot be considered unreasonable even for purely defensive purposes;” but he goes on to say: “a defensive plan, however, cannot be considered as satisfactory unless there is the possibility of taking the offensive at the right moment. This I am doing my best to prepare for; and, so soon as my native contingent is mobilised, I shall be ready, so far as my limited means will allow, to enter Zululand, should such a measure become necessary.”—(P. P. [C. 2222] p. 19).

On December 18th, Sir M. Hicks-Beach says: “I take this occasion, however, of reminding you that it is the desire of Her Majesty’s Government, in sending these reinforcements, to assist the local Government as far as possible in providing for the protection of the settlers in the present emergency, and not to furnish the means for any aggressive operations not directly connected with the defence of Her Majesty’s possessions and subjects” (ibid. p. 21).

On December 2nd, Sir B. Frere forwards copies of memoranda by Sir T. Shepstone and Mr. Brownlee, in which the former proposes measures which “involve the extinction of the Zulu power as it now is, and the attempt to adopt them must, if decided upon, be made with the knowledge that the Zulu chief will oppose them, whatever course the headmen and common people may adopt” (ibid. p. 134).

Mr. Brownlee says plainly: “The time has arrived for decisive action; we will never again have so favourable an opportunity as the present; if it is lost, sooner or later we will be taken at a disadvantage” (ibid. p. 138).