The evidence taken consisted of statements made by the above officers, not one of whom appears to have been questioned. The (so-called) inquiry seems to have been strictly limited to the occurrences at the camp, as we find Major Clery’s evidence finish abruptly, “I saw the column out of camp and accompanied it.” Colonel Glyn merely corroborated Major Clery’s statement; and the other officers gave their respective versions of the occurrences at the camp; Captain Essex giving a very clear and detailed account of the movements of the 24th Regiment.
The proceedings were forwarded on the 29th, with these remarks: “The court has examined and recorded the statements of the chief witnesses.
“The copy of proceedings forwarded was made by a confidential clerk of the Royal Engineers.
“The court has refrained from giving an opinion, as instructions on this point were not given to it.”
The proceedings were forwarded from Durban to the Secretary of State for War on February 8th by Lord Chelmsford, who said: “The court has very properly abstained from giving an opinion, and I myself refrain also from making any observations, or from drawing any conclusions from the evidence therein recorded.”
He regrets that more evidence has not been taken, and has directed his military secretary “to append a statement of the facts which came under his cognizance on the day in question.”—(P. P. [C. 2260] p. 80).
On this officer’s “statement” some remarks have been made in the previous chapter; and we must now quote one or two passages from the public prints, which appeared when Colonel Harness’s share in the proceedings of the 22nd January first came to light.
The Daily News of April 8th, referring to this episode and the court of inquiry, says: “Lord Chelmsford seems to have been as unfortunate in the selection of his staff-officers as he was in everything else.”
Lieut.-Colonel Crealock’s “statement” is stigmatised as “palpably written to establish a preconceived theory;” and The Daily News says most justly that “Colonel Harness should not have sat as member of the court of inquiry. How it could have been supposed that an officer who had taken so prominent a part in the doings of the 22nd January was a fit and suitable member of a court assembled even to take evidence merely, is more than we can understand. Besides, the very fact of his being a member, we are told, precluded Colonel Harness from giving his own valuable evidence.”
The Natal Witness of May 29th, 1879, makes some reflections on the same subject, which are very pertinent. We need not repeat its criticisms on the court of inquiry, etc. but it says: “It is notorious that certain members of Lord Chelmsford’s staff—there is no need to mention any name or names—came down to ’Maritzburg after the disaster, prepared to make Colonel Durnford bear the whole responsibility, and that it was upon their representations that the High Commissioner’s telegram about ‘poor Durnford’s misfortune’ was sent.”