A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriation

by James Stuart

In August the Minister for Native Affairs issued instructions to Magistrates to convene meetings of Chiefs and the principal men of their tribes, and to explain thereat such provisions of the Poll Tax Act as applied to Natives. These meetings were nearly all held in September and October. Whilst, at some, no more took place than expressions of regret at its having been found necessary to impose additional taxation, of which Natives had not been advised beforehand,[90] at others there was loud remonstrance, accompanied with disrespect to the Magistrates. The meetings at Durban and Pietermaritzburg, owing to not having been authorized till late in October, for the reason that there were practically no Chiefs there, were not held until the 4th and 28th November respectively. By that time, however, dissatisfaction in regard to the Act had been freely expressed in different parts of the Colony.[91] The convening of these further meetings, however, appeared necessary although no Chiefs could be present, seeing the law provided that payment could be made at any labour centre.[92]

It is easy to be wise after the event. Probably the better course would have been to hold no meetings at all at Durban and Pietermaritzburg, and to have taken other steps to inform Natives working in those towns of the law's requirements.

On the 22nd November the Magistrates were instructed to inform the Natives that the collection of the poll tax would take place on the 20th January, 1906, or as soon thereafter as possible. The date and order in which the tribes were to attend were, however, left to the Magistrates' discretion. A further circular (26th January), in calling attention to a proviso in the law that "no Native shall be deemed to have been guilty of a contravention of the Act until after the 31st day of May in any year," went on to direct that there was "no need for Natives who are not now prepared to pay the tax to visit the magistracy, branch courts or centres; only those desirous of paying the tax ... should be allowed to do so," also that where notices had already been issued calling on Chiefs to bring up their men, such were not to be countermanded, but "the Chiefs or representative headmen alone should be interviewed by the Magistrate and the result of the interview conveyed to the men by the Chiefs or such headmen."

Thus every precaution was taken by the Government to conform to the requirements and spirit of the Act. But, in conveying to uneducated savages the information that, although the tax became due on 1st January, and would begin to be collected after the 20th of that month, there was no compulsion to pay before 31st May, the greatest difficulty was experienced by the Magistrates. So used are Natives, under tribal rule, to regarding instructions from competent authority as peremptory that anything in the shape of a concessive order is extremely liable to be construed as requiring compliance on the day first notified by the Magistrate as that on which he would be prepared to receive the tax. This is evidently what happened in the case of a Chief shortly to be dealt with, otherwise he would not have called on his people to pay in the way he did.

On so important an occasion it would, perhaps, have been wiser to have adopted a different procedure, such, for instance, as was followed by Sir Theophilus Shepstone when the first tax of 7s. was imposed, and when, many years later, it was raised. That officer, as head of the Native Affairs Department, was, of course, familiar with the whole position. The same could not be said of any of the Magistrates. As the communication to be made was obviously one of delicacy and called for thorough explanation, he resolved to make it himself, and considerably in advance of any attempt at collection. In so acting he secured both accuracy and uniformity, besides keeping a firm hold on the situation. It is true that the Minister for Native Affairs, whose position was very different to that of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, having arrived at somewhat similar conclusions, toured most parts of Natal and Zululand to hold meetings with the Native Chiefs, etc. These were effective and pacifying; but, when the action was taken, most of the Magistrates had already explained the law to the best of their ability, with the results already indicated.

Anxious that those in his employ should conform to the new law, Henry Smith, a farmer of Umlaas Road, personally conducted his Natives to the magistracy, Camperdown, on the 17th January. This was but three days before that on which Magistrates had been instructed to begin their collections. The tax was paid. One of the boys thereafter obtained permission to go to his kraal on the pretext that his child was ill. The same evening, about 8 p.m., Smith was standing on his verandah when he heard a shuffling noise by the wall. He thought it was a dog, but saw a Native, who, putting his head round the corner, exclaimed: "Nkosi!" (ordinary form of salute), and handed him an envelope. Turning to read the address by the light of the window, Smith was at once stabbed by the Native with an assegai and mortally wounded. Circumstantial evidence led at the trial proved that the boy who got permission to go home was the one who had committed the murder. He was convicted. Apart from having been induced to pay the poll tax, no other motive for the murder could be discovered. That Smith was a good master was abundantly proved by the testimony of his other servants.

The following significant incident occurred at Mapumulo on the 22nd January. The Magistrate (Mr. R.E. Dunn) proceeded to Allan's store, some 9 miles from the magistracy, to collect the poll tax as previously arranged. Shortly after his arrival, a Chief, Ngobizembe, came up with about 100 men, each armed with several sticks and some carrying shields. These sticks and shields they placed beside them as they sat in the presence of the Magistrate.[93] On the latter saying that he had come to collect the tax, all exclaimed: "We won't pay!" Some 200 other members of the same tribe, the largest in the district, now approached Dunn from behind, chanting a song as they advanced. They were dressed in their war dress, and fully armed with shields, knobsticks and ordinary sticks. As they failed to accord the customary salute, their Chief remarked, "Why don't you salute?" "Why should we? We shan't!" they roared in reply. They then sat down, practically encircling the Magistrate and the three European and six Native police who were with him. Many of the Natives who wore hats did not remove them. The Magistrate again stated why he had come, and was about to make other remarks when all present, as with one voice, shouted him down with "Shut up! we refuse to pay!" In spite of further efforts to bring them to reason, the men became more and more uproarious and unruly. Their shouting became 'terrific.' They got up, danced about and gesticulated with their sticks in that defiant manner which only Natives are capable of doing, a form of effrontery indicative of trouble. They eventually came close up to the Magistrate and his staff from the rear, as if contemplating assault. Only by the Chief and some of the older men vigorously using their sticks, could they be made to fall back. In these and other ways the Magistrate, notwithstanding his being a perfect Zulu linguist, was treated with the grossest insolence, contempt and defiance. Only by exercising the greatest care was an outburst of violence averted.

Other similar instances of defiance were exhibited in the same district, viz. at Butler's Store, Insuze, on the 29th and 30th January, and, on the 1st February, at Gaillard's Store, Umvoti, by the members of three other tribes.