FOOTNOTES:

After fully considering the situation, the new Governor (Sir Matthew Nathan) "reluctantly came to the conclusion ... that Ministers are right in view that the peace of the Colony requires the removal of Dinuzulu from Zululand."[340]He concurred in the advice that Dinuzulu should be required to attend an inquiry into "the present state of affairs in Zululand and into his alleged connection with last year's Rebellion." He also agreed with the proposal that two companies of Imperial troops should be stationed at Eshowe, to discourage breaches of the peace and reassure loyalists more than was possible for a detachment of Militia to do. Representations were made accordingly to the Secretary of State by cable. The latter replied on the 14th October that His Majesty's Government would no doubt be "prepared to concur in the policy of enquiry, and, if necessary, to move the troops as desired, if the enquiry is to be into the best means of securing the peaceof the country, including the redress of grievances and if the Natal Government will pledge itself to do its best, in consultation with His Majesty's Government, to carry out the reforms recommended by the Commission [Native Affairs]. Such enquiry might be based on Dinuzulu's own request ... [and] be an important open enquiry ... not a mere police enquiry...."[341]Dinuzulu, in the meantime, nervous on account of the police patrol that had passed Usutu on the 30th September, contemplated leaving Usutu to live in a still more isolated quarter by the Black Umfolozi and nearer the sea.

Shortly after receipt of the Secretary of State's message (14th October), another Chief, Mpumela, was murdered by being shot after dark when sitting in his own hut—again was the murder commonly associated with Usutu kraal, not, in the first instance, by Europeans, but by Natives. Ministers now advised that a warrant of arrest should forthwith be issued against Dinuzulu and a strong body of Militia be sent to reinforce the Police when executing it. The Imperial Government abode by the policy, quoted above, with the result that the two companies of infantry applied for were not sent as requested. Had this comparatively minor point been conceded, it is probable that the murder of the loyal Chief, Mpumela, not to refer to attempts to murder others, would not have occurred. It is not surprising that, under the circumstances, the Colony decided to effect Dinuzulu's arrest with its own troops, without further appeal for Imperial assistance.

Having seen how Dinuzulu's desire for a public inquiry became, through gradual denouement, transformed into a decision to arrest him on a charge of high treason, we will now pass on to consider other aspects of the case.

One often hears it said that, with the country in so disturbed a state, a magnificent opportunity for plotting and fomenting rebellion was afforded the Chief during the latter end of 1905 and beginning of 1906 had he been so inclined. That is true. But the outlook from Dinuzulu's own point of view should not be lost sight of. Here wasa man, by far the most important in Natal and Zululand, in so far as social rank was concerned, who, but a few years before, had returned from a long exile. He was in a better position than was any Native in Natal to know what it meant to take up arms against Europeans. This had been tried in 1879 as well as in 1887, but had failed. It was not likely that, with his men in a disorganized condition and the nation split up into hundreds of separate tribes, the prospects of success would be any greater in 1906. Had he shown resistance, it was inevitable that the Government would have attacked him forthwith, before a strongimpicould have been assembled and supplies collected, quite apart from his being physically unfit to take the field. In other words, the widespread feelings of loyalty towards him by hordes of undisciplined barbarians meant little or nothing against organized troops, armed with modern weapons, until an opportunity had been afforded for openly mobilizing them and evolving order out of chaos. Dinuzulu had taken part in military operations, and was sufficiently a soldier to knowthat.

A further reason for disinclination was because, living but a few miles from him in different directions, were three Chiefs, Tshanibezwe, Mciteki and Kambi. These were all important men: the first was the son of Cetshwayo's prime minister; the second a son and temporary successor of Zibebu; and the third a son of Hamu (one of Dinuzulu's uncles). That is, sons of three of the thirteen 'kinglets' appointed by Sir Garnet (later Viscount) Wolseley. But the opportunity at hand, such as it was, was too good to lose. It might not occur again. He knew that the great mass of the people, already incensed against the Government, were looking to him. He knew that the large number of Chiefs in Natal and Zululand, and even beyond, expected him to take the lead. He knew they were ready to follow if he did. But the risks of failure were too imminent. Like Hamlet, he began to soliloquize. What, in this predicament, he actually did will perhaps be never fully known. Whether he specially sent forBambata, on hearing this petty Chief was being harassed at Mpanza, or that Bambata came of his own accord with one of his wives (and children) to seek a place on which to live; whether Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence, actually incited him to start a rebellion and flee across to Nkandhla, where Dinuzulu would meet him, or that Dinuzulu simply confined himself to saying he was unable to give a site; whether Mankulumana handed Bambata a rifle with which to begin the fighting, and provided him with emissaries to assist in inciting Natives, or that Dinuzulu, on hearing from Bambata of a certain doctor who could cure the ailment from which Dinuzulu was suffering, sent two messengers merely to summon the doctor: all this is to a large extent obscure. Witnesses have testified on oath to each of the alternatives. The Special Court found Dinuzulu not guilty of inciting Bambata to rebel, owing mainly to the evidence of the wife and children appearing to be an improbable version of what actually happened; but, whilst discrediting this evidence, the Court did not say it accepted Dinuzulu's own plausible story.

It is unnecessary to deal with other counts than the one referred to. The prosecution and defence were at one in concluding that: (a) Bambata fled to Dinuzulu, with his wife and children, after wilfully disobeying an order of the Government; (b) he had two or more interviews with Dinuzulu and his indunas towards the end of March; (c) he received exceptionally favourable treatment during the three or four days he was at Usutu; (d) he was accompanied to Mpanza, Natal, by two 'messengers' from Dinuzulu; (e) on reaching Mpanza, he made preparations to rebel, being actively assisted therein by one of the 'messengers' referred to, who, in Dinuzulu's name, openly incited members of his tribe to rebel; (f) with the assistance of Dinuzulu's messenger, three distinct acts of rebellion were committed on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th April; (g) Bambata, along with the same messenger and about 130 men then fled to Nkandhla; (h) at Nkandhla, it was represented by the said messenger that Bambata had theauthority of Dinuzulu to rebel and take refuge there; and (i) Dinuzulu's messenger thereupon usurped control of Sigananda's tribe in order to assist Bambata. As there is unanimity in these and other particulars, and as the Court found Dinuzulu not guilty, the question arises: Who, then, was the cause of the Rebellion? The question is a fair one and obviously demands an answer, if one can be given.

Let us attempt an analysis. The names of the ringleaders were Bambata, Cakijana (Dinuzulu's messenger), Mangati, Sigananda and Mehlokazulu, whilst those who are declared to have instigated it are Dinuzulu, Mgwaqo and Mankulumana. If the author of the Insurrection is not among these, then he is nowhere.

Mgwaqo and Mankulumana may be eliminated because, being indunas of Dinuzulu, the latter must be held to have been privy to, and responsible for, everything they did. Bambata would never have been incited, nor would he have agreed to rebel, except on receiving an assurance from Dinuzulu himself that they were voicing his wishes.

Mangati and Mehlokazulu, again, only appeared on the sceneafterthe Rebellion had started, and Bambata was at Nkandhla. No one who knows the facts would regard either of them as the cause. They were accessory, butex post facto.

Now, as regards Bambata, Cakijana, Sigananda and Dinuzulu. We have seen that Cakijana was a 'messenger.' The prosecution declared he was an emissary, but, assuming him to have been merely a messenger on his way to fetch a doctor, it is agreed that, when he accompanied Bambata to Natal, he did not receive his instructions from Dinuzulu or at Usutu, but at his own kraal many miles away.[342]But for having been ordered to accompany Bambata, he would probably not have gone at all. Cakijana declares Bambata had already arrived at the decision to rebel when he joined him; consequently, if this be true,the instigator could not have been Cakijana—for instance, when he represented to Bambata's and Sigananda's tribes that it was Dinuzulu's order that they should rebel.

There is not a shred of evidence that any communication passed between Sigananda and Bambata until after the Rebellion had started, and this notwithstanding the blood relation between the tribes. Sigananda, at his trial at Nkandhla, in June, 1906, a couple of weeks after Mome, stated that, in the absence of Dinuzulu and Mankulumana, he would say nothing, they being the people "who drew this man (i.e.Bambata) along here...."President of Court-Martial—"I want the names of the people who brought you into trouble."Answer—"I say their names are Dinuzulu and Mankulumana.... This man Bambata came from their country." Another of Sigananda's reasons for not giving his evidence was because he had just heard the messenger he sent to Dinuzulu to report Bambata's arrival at Nkandhla give evidence. With such evidence he fully concurred. What was it? Briefly that Dinuzulu had sent the following reply: "Tell my grandfather, Sigananda, that he is to receive my man Bambata into his bosom and take care of him." The witness added that Dinuzulu was at the bottom of the Rebellion, and had said he would assist by ordering various tribes to support Sigananda. And the tribes referred todidactively support. Other evidence was given showing conclusively that Sigananda rebelled solely because of the instructions he had received from Dinuzulu. Now, this is independent and remarkable testimony by one of the oldest and staunchest supporters of the Usutu cause in Zululand.

There remain the names of Bambata and Dinuzulu. We know Bambata rebelled. But was he the principal, or merely an agent or instrument? He has been called a 'madman.' The word 'hlanya,' however, that was commonly applied to him, also means 'firebrand,' 'desperado,' or 'anarchist'; it was in the latter senses that it was used. Cakijana was the same type of man, though, in addition, with considerable experience of European warfare, arms,ammunition, etc. This Dinuzulu knew when he directed him to accompany Bambata. Indeed, had the mission been merely the absurdly trivial one of fetching a doctor from a low-caste tribe, a hundred other equally suitable and less martially-inclined messengers could have been got within ten miles of Dinuzulu's kraal and within his own ward. And then not two but one would have been necessary and usual for such a purpose, especially as the man who had recommended the doctor was himself accompanying the messenger. Cakijana lived in another ward, and was not a member of Dinuzulu's tribe.

Bambata was killed during the Rebellion, hence his evidence is not available. His wife and children (the latter aged about 17 and 14 in 1907), declare that he was presented with a rifle and ammunition at Usutu with Dinuzulu's knowledge, whilst the first-mentioned adds that she heard Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence and hearing, incite Bambata to rebel and to use the rifle and ammunition referred to for the purpose. Bambata, too, is known to have informed other people that Dinuzulu had given him the rifle.

On no occasion had Bambata fought against the Government until he met and conversed with Dinuzulu and his indunas, and the fatal blow was struck within a few days of the interviews. The first thing any Native would do when meditating resistance would be to calculate if his force is likely to succeed. That such is Native character, just as it is the character of other races, was brought out by witnesses both in Dinuzulu and Sigananda's trials, to refer to no others. That the same calculation was made by Bambata is probable. That it was because he recognized the futility of taking up arms that he fled when a handful of Police were sent in March to arrest him is abundantly clear. From where, then, did he derive that confidence to attack which at first he lacked? Like a wise man, wishing to oppose the Government when depriving him of his chieftainship, but realizing his inability to do so with success, he went to the only person whowasable to assist, one described by Natives themselves as "a hightree, upon which all the birds fed or congregated." That another Chief would be appointed in his place became a certainty to him as soon as he deserted. He, an old Natal resident, well knew the consequences of defiant conduct. Hence, feelings of hostility, together with the motive to fight, were already in his mind when he went to Dinuzulu. They did not arise merely after he got back and saw his uncle had been appointed, for the choice of a successor necessarily lay between the uncle and Bambata's brother, Funizwe. Support is given to this view by the boast Bambata is said to have made to his tribesmen when leaving for Usutu in March: "When next you set eyes on me, I shall be at the head of an army!"

We believe that Bambata went to Dinuzuluwith the resolution to rebel already formed, and that the sole object of the visit was to obtain from Dinuzulu, at that time believed by ignorant Natives to be all-powerful, an assurance that if he, Bambata, belled the cat, he would obtain the Zulu Chief's support. We believe, after a long and careful study of the facts, that such assurance was unequivocably, though subtly, given. The proof of this is that Bambata fled unhesitatingly to Nkandhla as soon as he rebelled, where he immediately got the support of an acknowledged Usutu adherent, and such was given because Sigananda was directed by Dinuzulu to 'protect' Bambata. We do not believe Dinuzulu went out of his way to incite the man to rebel, still less that he sent for him in a cold-blooded way with the object of inciting him to rebel, nor even that he suggested his so doing, because, as we have endeavoured to show, the intent was probably already latent in Bambata's own mind. The 'suggestion' theory is plausible and appears to fit the case exactly, except for theanimus injuriandithat may reasonably be supposed to have been present in Bambata's mindbeforehe started for Usutu. In other words, we believe he was the author, but only because Dinuzulu was accessory. But for the feeling to rebel having occurred spontaneously, we can hardly picture to ourselves his going off to starta rebellion with only a couple of Dinuzulu's men in attendance. Surely, had the initiative come from Dinuzulu himself, Bambata would not have been content with the terms. On such a hypothesis, they would have been most unusual. No mere agent would have acted with the dash and daring Bambata did. His actions were those of a principal. But for Cakijana, the whole of the men who struck the first blow were members of Bambata's own tribe and entirely under his command. What experience had Dinuzulu of Bambata's fighting capacity that he should select him, a young man, to carry out so vast an undertaking, assuming Dinuzulu to have been actively directing its execution?

Then, it should be remembered, Dinuzulu was nothing very much to Bambata. His allegiance was allegiance-for-the-time-being, mere opportunism. Bambata belonged to a class (not only a tribe, but a set of tribes) generally looked down on by the Zulus. He was a Lala. Lalas were and are still held by Zulus to be an inferior people; ancient slanders to the effect that they do not wash before meals, and habitually lie down to sleep in an indecent manner, are indications of the attitude assumed by the aristocratic Zulus towards them. It was with that hereditary social antipathy in mind, conscious that he was accused of being the actual formenter of insurrection, that Dinuzulu, in his famous message to the Government protesting loyalty and innocence, spoke of the man, with whom he had just had intimate dealings, as 'this dog Bambata.' Zulus regard dogs as filthy creatures and keep them at a distance; the term, therefore, was intended to give the impression that it was opprobrious. As a matter of fact, it was nothing of the kind. Under these circumstances, it can be seen Bambata's loyalty towards Dinuzulu was not pervaded with that depth of affection and sincerity of devotion which would have animated tribes of a higher class.

As regards 'this dog Bambata' being connected with Dinuzulu through the latter's marriage with a girl, Nomadhlangala, the contention can be dismissed in aword. The girl belonged to the Bomvu tribe, that is, to a tribe living next to Bambata's, whose services to the Government, by invading and spoiling Bambata's ward along with the troops, besides other acts of conspicuous loyalty during the Rebellion, have become widely known.

Bambata was naturally impulsive, determined and daring, with an experience of fighting, if only faction fighting. A man of that kind, already inclined to intemperance, with all his substance wasted, and ruin, in the shape of loss of chieftainship, staring him in the face, would not require urging to take up arms. The only point for him to consider, then, would be the amount of support that could be reckoned on.

That the foregoing theory is reasonable is further borne out by what actually happened. Testimony was repeatedly given at various trials—which cannot all be brushed aside by Dinuzulu's petulant exclamation that the witnesses are personal enemies—that Dinuzulu had, at different stages of the Rebellion, either "givenSigananda to Bambata," or "givenMehlokazulu to Bambata," orgivensome other Chief. The meaning was that Dinuzulu had instructed these Chiefs, in some way and at different moments, to assist or support Bambata in fighting the Government. And all the Chiefs that were named did assist. The probabilities are, moreover, that the gun and ammunition obtained by Bambata at Usutu, if given by Dinuzulu, were given not as ocular proof of incitement, but in token of his sympathy and support—not in the shape of fighting material, but to influence others who controlled such material. Such sympathy, however, we believe, was extended only on condition that the identity of the giver was not revealed.

Messengers were sent from Uzutu to Sigananda soon after Bambata got to the forests, directing him to "place Bambata under his armpit," implying, of course, that the man was to be protected from the Government troops that were sure to follow.

A strong reason why Dinuzulu did not incite Bambata to rebel, except in the sense of assuring him of indirectsupport, is the fact that he did not send with him an induna,i.e.one who is usually an elderly, headringed man. This omission will appeal powerfully to all who know the Zulu character.[343]Cakijana was a man of no rank whatever, though he had once been a servant of Dinuzulu, as well as a member of his bodyguard (Nkomondala); moreover, he was not more than 33 years old, and without that customary sign of manhood and responsibility—a headring. Dinuzulu himself drew the attention of the Government to these facts in defence of his conduct. But, althoughprima facieproof of his not having instigated Bambata, the sending of Cakijana and the other messenger was proof to Bambata and to others of Dinuzulu's readiness to assist, and that was precisely what Bambata wanted. He, as well as Cakijana, made such use of the fact that, as we believe, a false impression was conveyed to Natives at Mpanza, at Nkandhla, and other places, that Dinuzulu himself was rebelling, instead of onlyassistingBambata to rebel—that is, assisting by using the influence he possessed to practically 'direct' Chiefs to support, although always in a position to retort to the Government that, being only a Chief, he obviously had no authority over other Chiefs, as clearly stipulated in the conditions of repatriation. The conveyance of such impression, and especially its probable communication to the authorities, greatly alarmed Dinuzulu, and possibly was the motive why he so persistently concealed from the Government the fact that Bambata's wife and children were being harboured by him, and, from Bambata's wife, that her husband was dead.

The main feature of this aspect of the case was Dinuzulu's absolute fear of taking any step to start a rebellion in his own name. He could, of course, have made the attempt, but, because closely watched by the Government (particularly during the unrest), by the three Chiefs and hereditary foes that have been named, as well as byother Chiefs, the game was not worth the candle. He might as well have committed suicide. These are the reasons why he did not embark on a rebellion (as some seem to think it was open to him to do), except to the extent of cautious wire-pulling from a considerable distance. No doubt he did the best that could possibly have been done under the circumstances to embarrass the Government. It certainly was not because he was wholeheartedly loyal that he refrained from rebelling, for the Special Court found him guilty of high treason, and the justice of that finding has never been questioned by anyone.

When Mr. Stainbank was murdered, Mankulumana, as has been seen, was sent with a few men by Dinuzulu, on application being made to him by the Government, to help in arresting the murderer or murderers. The mission met with no success whatever. Only after six years' police inquiry, carried on altogether independently of Dinuzulu's assistance, was the murderer discovered, brought to trial and convicted (July, 1912). This man, Mayatana, turned out to be the son of one of Cetshwayo's principal political messengers. He was well known to Dinuzulu, had for months resided at Usutu, and, during the Boer War, was a member of his bodyguard. It was the same man who, as he himself declared, was sent with Cakijana by Dinuzulu to shoot a man called Gence for having committed adultery with one of Dinuzulu's wives, and causing the Chief to become ill. Gence was accordingly murdered, not, as Mayatana was careful to point out, by himself (though he also fired), but by Cakijana.[344]

The case of Dinuzulu is of many-sided interest, butwe cannot stay to examine it further. It is, we believe, destined to become classic, as demonstrating the impossibility of dealing with the Native or, indeed, any subject races on other than lines natural or as natural as possible to themselves. The story is a sad and painful one. No one who goes into it can fail to find a deep pathos running through the whole. That is only to be expected, because of the limitations that were placed on one of such outstanding rank, and after he had already experienced the dangerous honours and pleasures that belong, as of right, to the heir of every vacant throne. It is a story of political faults, and these by no means only on Dinuzulu's side, but it is also the story, especially in later days, of deep-rooted intrigue on the part of the ex-Chief, culminating in a memorable, though merciful, debâcle. He was, as we have seen, placed in an extremely awkward predicament, but the restrictiveness and distastefulness thereof would not, we venture to think, be held by even his most devoted friends to have justified the disloyalty of which he was found to be guilty. At the same time, it is fair to bear in mind that, ever since the Zulu War, he has had to contend with difficulties of so extraordinary a kind as no other Zulu has ever been called on to face.

One cannot but regret that he was allowed to drift as long as he did. The irrationality of his position was practically unperceived, except by those closest to him, and, if perceived by others, insufficiently appreciated, so that a more suitable and timely remedy could be found and applied. But here again, as the reader will have already inferred, both the Imperial and Natal Governments were face to face with obstacles of no ordinary character, which could not have been removed, except by incurring grave risks and, perhaps, even graver than those that were incurred.

FOOTNOTES:[338]Cd. 3998, p. 7.[339]Shortly after the Rebellion began, and public suspicion had been aroused as to the Chief's loyalty, Sir Charles Saunders reported as follows (20th April): "At my first interview with Dinuzulu on his return from exile, I told him I would be perfectly frank and open in all my dealings with him and I expected the same demeanour on his part towards myself." That this promise was faithfully kept by Sir Charles Saunders is undoubted, only, however, to be met with gross deception on the part of Dinuzulu.[340]Cd. 3888, p. 109.[341]Cd. 3888, p. 149.[342]This, though not in accordance with Zulu practice, is a method that would naturally commend itself to a man like Dinuzulu, who would realize the danger of adopting normal procedure.[343]Too much emphasis should not, however, be laid on this, as Dinuzulu was shrewd enough to know that, only by not conforming to normal procedure, would he stand the best chance of cloaking the true intent of his words and actions.[344]When the troops arrived at Nongoma (December, 1907), the same Mayatana volunteered to assist as a 'spy.' As he appeared to be acting in abona-fidemanner, his services were accepted. On one occasion, he led the way by night to a cave near Usutu, where a couple of useless guns and akambafull of old cartridge cases were found. It was not, of course, known then that he was a murderer. It is not improbable that, althoughapparentlyassisting the troops, he wasreallyacting in his master, Dinuzulu's, interests the whole time. To have done so, would have been in keeping with Zulu character in time of war.

[338]Cd. 3998, p. 7.

[339]Shortly after the Rebellion began, and public suspicion had been aroused as to the Chief's loyalty, Sir Charles Saunders reported as follows (20th April): "At my first interview with Dinuzulu on his return from exile, I told him I would be perfectly frank and open in all my dealings with him and I expected the same demeanour on his part towards myself." That this promise was faithfully kept by Sir Charles Saunders is undoubted, only, however, to be met with gross deception on the part of Dinuzulu.

[340]Cd. 3888, p. 109.

[341]Cd. 3888, p. 149.

[342]This, though not in accordance with Zulu practice, is a method that would naturally commend itself to a man like Dinuzulu, who would realize the danger of adopting normal procedure.

[343]Too much emphasis should not, however, be laid on this, as Dinuzulu was shrewd enough to know that, only by not conforming to normal procedure, would he stand the best chance of cloaking the true intent of his words and actions.

[344]When the troops arrived at Nongoma (December, 1907), the same Mayatana volunteered to assist as a 'spy.' As he appeared to be acting in abona-fidemanner, his services were accepted. On one occasion, he led the way by night to a cave near Usutu, where a couple of useless guns and akambafull of old cartridge cases were found. It was not, of course, known then that he was a murderer. It is not improbable that, althoughapparentlyassisting the troops, he wasreallyacting in his master, Dinuzulu's, interests the whole time. To have done so, would have been in keeping with Zulu character in time of war.

CONCLUSION.

Thatunusual significance attaches to the events narrated in the foregoing pages, can hardly fail to have impressed the reader. It will, no doubt, have been borne in on him that he is here face to face with the spirit of Africa itself. Attempts have been made to explain the position as it developed. What remains now is to deal with the subject in a more general way—see if what occurred amounted to rebellion; if so, when it began and came to an end; estimate the various underlying causes; attempt replies to some of the criticisms that were passed; and, finally, put forward one or two suggestions as to future relations between the European and Native races.

(i)Nature of the Rising.

A number of people, swayed by false accusations of rapacity, unfairness or what not against the colonists, would appear to have come to the conclusion that the Rebellion was of a merely superficial nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not that the colonists were or are without blame, for they are of the same type of British settler as is to be found in any other part of the Empire, but such faults as they were responsible for were certainly not, as far as we can see, the principal or moving cause. There was something more fundamental than that.

But before dealing with the causes, let us inquire if what occurred was a rebellion or an insurrection. Whatis rebellion? It is "organized armed resistance to the ruler or government of one's country."[345]What is insurrection? It is "the action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint."[346]

It would be difficult to prove that the attack on the Police at Trewirgie amounted to rebellion or even to insurrection. It was, however, active resistance to constituted authority at a time when practically the whole country was in a state of unrest and seething with disaffection. The attack was, no doubt, intended to be an act of insurrection or rebellion, though prematurely carried into execution.[347]This conclusion is supported by the fact that it was followed by no other overt act of violence on the part of others; at any rate, not until two months later. But for such occurrence, the Mpanza one would probably not have taken place in the way it did. The former, no doubt, paved the way for the latter, though, at the same time, as a general rebellious spirit was abroad, Trewirgie may be said to have disturbed the formation of plans that were either incubating or would certainly have incubated in an environment favourable for a general rising.

When, however, we come to Bambata's attack, there can be no question but that such was a premeditated act, intended to be the first step in a revolt which, it was hoped, would rapidly become universal.

The Mpanza affair was further characterized by the plans formed in connection therewith. Evidences of plan are found in Cakijana, in the name of Dinuzulu, inciting Bambata's people to rebel, and warning them not to kill European women and children, or other than members of the Militia and Police forces; in the insurgents forthwith crossing to the Nkandhla forests, where the Chief of that part, on receipt of 'instructions' from Dinuzulu, proceeded to protect Bambata; in Sigananda, Mehlokazulu and other Chiefs or headmen promptly assisting Bambata. A war-cry, badges and pass-words, which presently became general, were, moreover, ordered to be used, and so on.

The plan undoubtedly was that the rising should eventually involve the whole of Natal and Zululand. To begin with, hostility was to be allowed to develop out of a spirit of unrest and opposition to the Government, known to have more or less infected the entire Native population. After the insurgents had to some extent established themselves at Nkandhla, they began coercing neighbouring Chiefs to join their cause by raiding their stock. Had suitable opportunity occurred, these methods would have been practised on men living at even greater distances. Later on, two indunas, Macala and another, were, as declared by Mangati, appointed by Dinuzulu—the former to take supreme command of the rebel forces.

But evidences of plan and organization are not of themselves sufficient to decide the point. The character of the motives is also a determining factor.

There is abundant evidence that the Natives of Natal were satisfied with the Crown Colony government that existed up to 1893, whilst those of Zululand were equally contented with the Imperial control which continued until the end of 1897. The majority were averse to being autocratically ruled by Zulu kings of the type of Tshaka, Dingana or Cetshwayo.[348]It is, moreover, certain that they knew themselves to be powerless against European troops. With the recent object-lesson of the Boer War before them, they realized the utter futility and madness of attempting to regain their independence as a nation. There is no evidence of any such thought having been seriously entertained, in spite of Ethiopian propaganda.The most they hoped for was that, as the Imperial troops had been withdrawn, the King would not assist the Colonial Government in the event of hostilities. The mere fact of withdrawing the troops appeared to their limited outlook to show that His Majesty disapproved of the manner in which the Colony, and especially the Native people, were being governed, and would, therefore, probably refrain from helping. Because of apparent disapproval of Natal policy, the sympathies of the King, they thought, would be with the Zulus in any conflict that might arise; and any opposition by them would be held to be justifiable. The mere fact of a quarrel occurring would be good cause why the Imperial Government should intervene and readjust matters. After interfering, a general inquiry would ensue and possibly lead to reversion to the former mode of government, and, perhaps, to the setting up of Dinuzulu as Paramount Chief.

This is the loose reasoning that Dinuzulu and Mankulumana probably indulged in, and this is the only motive that we can assign for the Chief aiding and abetting Bambata as he did. The pronounced way in which the numerous Chiefs, headmen and other Natives that appeared before the Commission approved of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's management of their affairs under Crown Colony government goes to support the theory.

The peculiar instruction that European women and children were not to be murdered or molested, or men other than Police or Militia injured, is also in harmony with the idea, for Dinuzulu knew the Natives would forfeit all sympathy with their cause in England had they put their ordinary methods of warfare into practice. Clearly this extraordinary instruction was issued to gain approval. It was certainly not to placate the rebels. If not the Imperial Government, we fail to see what other people it was intended to influence. No doubt, the severe manner in which Europeans condemned the murders of European women and children as well as civilians by the Matabele (Zulus) in the Rhodesian Rebellion of 1896, had come to Dinuzulu's notice. If the motive wassimply to destroy European government and set up their own in its place, it is obvious no such order would have been issued.

It may be incidentally remarked that many Europeans, particularly at the beginning of the rising, were in a great state of alarm lest the Natives should riseen blocand massacre them. The great difficulties of combination between Chiefs were, however, insufficiently realized, especially as many were loyal, or at least neutral, and would have reported any hostile plans or intentions that came to their notice.

We believe the order about not putting European women and children to death was issued, and it is not unlikely that credit therefor should be given to Dinuzulu himself. At the same time, one should bear in mind that the Natives of Natal and Zululand, upwards of a million in number, were in a completely disorganized condition. To a great extent, they looked to Dinuzulu as their head, and he, no doubt, desired to be their leader. They would have wished for nothing better than that he should lead in an active manner. The fact remains that he did not take up such position, and certainly a man like Bambata could never have done so. Therefore, although Dinuzulu might have given the order, there was no guarantee, had the Government dealt with the Rebellion in a less rigorous manner than it did, that the rebels, especially if they had secured a few successes in different parts of the country, would not have become so elated as to actas they saw fit, in the belief that the day had at last come when the white man was to be driven back into the sea 'from whence he came.'

As proof that the foregoing supposition is not incorrect, we find that the civilians Veal, Sangreid and Walters were murdered, and Robbins seriously wounded.[349]And these incidents happened two or three months after issue of the order.

One can understand Bambata's animus towards the Government, but, as has already been shown, Bambata was backed or supported by Dinuzulu. Had his actions not been so directed, it is impossible to understand how the many rebels that joined him could have done so merely for the sake of fighting against the Government in the certain knowledge of being speedily annihilated. So many members of a normally sane and phlegmatic people would never have followed anignis fatuusand sacrificed themselves on the mere chance that the public would benefit. It is inconsistent with Zulu character for a man to sacrifice himself, unless there be a reasonable probability of material advantage accruing. We, therefore, arrive at the conclusion that their only reason for taking up arms was because they believed, and believed on what appeared to be the best possible authority, that Dinuzulu desired and had 'ordered' them to fight to further some practical, profitable scheme or another which he had in mind.

Another possible motive was, by offering sharp and stubborn resistance, to demonstrate to all concerned, more plainly than words could do, that the people resented the way in which they were being governed, and so urge their local rulers to bring about a change for the better. These aimless or improvident tactics are, indeed, of a merely animal type, such, for instance, as a dog, continually irritated by its master, might resort to.

Having regard to Dinuzulu's association with the rising in the capacity, to some extent, of invisible mentor and director, we cannot believe that, with his by no means scanty knowledge of Imperial rule and of Natal responsible government, especially of the conditions under which he had been repatriated, and of the political relations subsisting between the Home Government and Natal, he would not have had some ulterior object in view, even though not given expression to at the time. His personal preference for the Imperial Government has always been strong, consequently restoration of something akin to Crown Colony government was naturallywhat would have been uppermost in his mind and supplied a sufficiently practical goal. If, however, responsible government could not be revoked, the conditions under which he had been repatriated might conceivably have been revised by establishing him as Paramount Chief and, through him, improving the status and condition of the people at large. That such thoughts were actually in his mind is proved by his own words to Sir Henry McCallum at the important interview that took place in Pietermaritzburg in May, 1907: "I do not wish," he said, "to conceal it from your Excellency that the whole of the people, the Zulus, like me, as the son of my father, who was their king formerly.... Now, I feel it very hard on me, as I have been placed on a level with all other headmen and Chiefs in the country. We are just like a flock of goats, we are all the same.... I feel very pained about something that I wish to state. My father went to war with the British Government; he was beaten; he was taken away from the country, but afterwards, ... allowed to return.... Notwithstanding that he was returned by the kindness of the Home Government to his home in Zululand, I feel, and I wish to speak plainly here, that he was not treated as he should have been, nor I, nor the people of Zululand, as other nations or peoples who have gone to war with the Government have been treated.... We cannot help feeling that we Zulu people have been discriminated against, and have not had the same treatment meted out to us as to other races.... There is no one over us all who might be held responsible and as a superior to keep them together and to give them advice and direction."[350]

We do not believe the ordinary Natives were well enough informed to appreciate the general motives here imputed to Dinuzulu, but it was not at all necessary that they should know them before acting as 'directed' by their supreme head. In the patriarchal system, blind and unquestioning obedience is rendered, as a matter of course, even to Chiefs; much more so in the case of aParamount Chief or King. For all they knew, the ordinary Natives might, in 1906, have been fighting for anything else. It was sufficient to know that they were acting by direction of their 'King,' the adequacy and practicability of the end in view being a matter left entirely for him to decide. Loyalty and devotion such as this could not but be admired by all who witnessed it.

It is just as well, from the rebels' point of view, that Dinuzulu did not reveal his objective (assuming the one imputed to him to be correct), otherwise many must have realized at once the futility of their endeavours. After all, he himself saw the game was hardly worth the candle, which accounts for his contenting himself with working through other tribes,i.e.through those over whom,ex hypothesi, he had no official jurisdiction.

Although he was, by birth, the supreme head, his authority was not recognized by many Natives, especially in Natal,i.e.where the new taxation pressed most heavily. Armed opposition was, therefore, contemplated to some extent independently of his control. The murder of Smith at Umlaas Road, the incident at Trewirgie, the exhibitions of defiance to various Magistrates, cannot be explained, except as spontaneous, isolated and purely local outbursts of hostile feeling in which Dinuzulu was not implicated. He had his reasons for promoting hostilities, whilst the Natives in general, particularly those in Natal, had theirs. He distinctly appears to have exercised restraint, and prevented the rising from resolving itself into isolated outbreaks in all parts of Natal and Zululand, regulated by nothing but the caprice of self-appointed leaders.

In these circumstances, the only conclusion we can come to is that the rising, dominated as it was from start to finish by Dinuzulu's personality, was more of the character of an insurrection than of a rebellion, for, although apparently aiming at a change in the constitution, such change, as we believe, was intended to be brought about by the Imperial Government of its own motion, as soon as the time came for intervening. Itwas what may be styled a limited or incipient rebellion, although the rebels themselves, and certain sections of the people, appear to have acted in the belief that the object was or ought to be nothing less than expulsion of the white race from Natal, if not from South Africa.[351]

That the taking of action against Dinuzulu was deferred until sixteen months after the conclusion of the Rebellion, is accounted for by his at first being presumed to be loyal; his having quickly paid the poll tax; and his offer of a levy. Had Colonel McKenzie received, prior to August, 1906, the subsequently-obtained information of the Chief's treasonable conduct—it is needless to say that he would have been dealt with without delay.

(ii)Causes, motives, etc., of the Rebellion.

The vexed question of the causes of the Rebellion appears simpler now that practically the whole of the evidence is available, by which we mean that of the Native Affairs Commission, of Dinuzulu's and other trials, and of numerous other official and private records. But, in dealing with the subject, one is at once confronted with a number of difficulties. The so-called 'causes' are found to resolve themselves into causes, motives and occasions, these again being capable of further subdivision. The word 'cause' will here be restricted to any action on the part of the Government or colonists that tended to bring about in the Natives an attitude of hostility or rebelliousness; 'motive' will be limited to anything which was an inducement to advance from attitude to action; and 'occasion' will be regarded as an opportunity, time, or state, favourable for rebelling. It is one thing for Dinuzulu to have had motives and occasions for promoting insurrection, quite another as to what causes had been at work in bringing about a rebellious spirit in the people.

The first, elementary, and most striking fact in connection with the upheaval is the profound and natural differences that existed between the contending races. Their civilizations were widely different. They had different creeds; different social systems; different habits and customs; different languages, history and traditions; a different physical, moral and intellectual nature and equipment; different tastes, ideals and outlooks on life, and countless other differences. Although the causes of any general conflict between a higher and a lower race are not, perhaps, necessarily deep-seated, in this particular instance we believe they arose out of the all-round radical differences referred to, and were as fundamental as it was possible for them to be.

Because of being a different race, the Natives, as has been seen, were governed by a set of laws different to those of the Europeans. This they strongly approved. It was, indeed, after their heart's desire. But, with the introduction of Responsible Government and development of European towns, commerce, industries, institutions, etc., Native Affairs received a gradually diminishing amount of attention on the part of the European community. As the Europeans progressed and became more engrossed in their own affairs, necessity for safeguarding purely Native interests seemed to recede further into the background. This was, to some extent, due to Members of the Legislative Assembly being invariably elected by a purely European electorate. When, as a result of the Boer War, severe financial depression came about, and Parliament was compelled to raise money, the Poll Tax Act was passed, though without being specially referred to the Natives. Theoretically there was no necessity for reference, for they were represented by Members of both Houses. The fault was not really attributable to the Government, still less to the colonists, but was rather one of the inevitable results of Responsible Government, and especially of Western Civilization, of which such Government was a natural outcome. Inthe Constitution Act,[352]elaborate provision was made for the protection of European interests, but no other than general provision on behalf of the Natives. That the action taken in respect of the latter was indefinite, was owing to their being barbarians, and in a very backward state of civilization. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that the pendulum should eventually swing unduly in favour of the Europeans. As, however, the grant of Responsible Government came from the Imperial Government, such Government cannot be absolved from a share of the blame for the one-sided—and perhaps, for the time being, necessarily one-sided—tendencies inherent in the Constitution Act.

The specific grievances date, for the most part, from this granting of Responsible Government. Prior to that time, the Natives were under the immediate control of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, or officers who managed their affairs on more or less similar lines. On such regime, all still look back with affection and gratitude. But the seeds of friction and discord were nevertheless latent, only time being needed for them to develop into actual antagonism.

Apart from the system of Responsible Government, another disturbing cause was the immigration of Europeans and Indians. This had gone on steadily before 1893 and since. These increases, combined with a greatly-augmented Native population, seriously affected the conditions of living and, on account of the keener struggle for existence in a changing environment, the easy-going and comparatively indolent Native was obliged to go more and more to the wall.

It was, therefore, impossible to prevent the impression gaining ground, especially in later times, with an accelerated spreading of enlightenment, that the Natives were being discriminated against and, with such impression, accentuated by the sinister Ethiopian propaganda disseminated throughout the country since 1892, loss of confidence in the white man's rule became inevitable.

That Natives arrived at the conclusion that they were being discriminated against must be taken as fact. Dinuzulu's interview with the Governor proves that he personally had arrived at the same conclusion. Instances of like views will be found throughout the Evidence given before the Native Affairs Commission. We are not prepared to deny that this view is to a large extent correct, though cannot go the length of condemning Natal Native policy in such unmeasured terms as some are inclined to do. The clashing that occurred seems to have arisen more out of the innate character of Western Civilization than out of specific injustice, repression or inordinate self-seeking on the part of the colonists.

When once a people begins to feel that it is accorded no particularly definite status in the country, that its welfare is of no special concern to the rulers, except as a means to the latter's material advancement, that its members, in short, are pariahs in what, but a few years before, was their own country, then the time is not far distant when they may be expected to make a bid for liberty. It is beside the question to set about to defend the principles of any policy when such impression is abroad and the country in a ferment; if people believe they are being down-trodden, thebelief, justifiable or not, is what has to be reckoned with. In Natal, it was a fact that many Natives believed themselves to be a down-trodden race, and it was this general fact which seems to us to have been a main underlying cause of their rebelliousness. But, whilst being a cause, one thing must be borne clearly in mind. The insurrection was partial, not universal. Had various Natal governments shown no regard whatever for the people's interests and welfare, and been content merely to exploit them for the benefit of the white race, no one will deny that such feelings of hatred would have been engendered as to have caused the rising to be far more extensive and formidable than it was. That there should have been warfare at all is bad enough, but it is at least fair to Natal to remember that the great mass of the people did not feel that provocation, sufficient for taking up arms, had been given. This testimony is manifestly in favour of successive governments not having been quite so callous as some have endeavoured to make out. Of course, the comparatively few who actually armed—between 10,000 and 12,000—wished to organize a general insurrection or rebellion; of that there is abundant evidence; and such plan might have succeeded had the rising not been sternly met and speedily repressed. The malcontents, knowing that the effects of European rule were felt as more or less oppressive by the majority of their kinsmen—just as the majority would, in time, have regarded as oppressive the rule of the highest type of British or any other rulers that could possibly have been selected—and knowing that the poll tax had still further embittered their race against European rule, calculated that the time was ripe for general rebellion. They reckoned that far greater numbers would have joined than actually did. But they were disappointed. They failed to allow sufficiently for the inertia of those who, though not particularly enamoured of European rule, saw nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by resort to arms. Even Dinuzulu, in spite of his promise, and after exerting his influence on Sigananda, Mehlokazulu and others, failed at the critical moment to afford active support. The fact is that the Natal Government had not become altogether intolerable, except to such recognized renegades as Bambata. In every State of the world, numbers of malcontents are ever ready to rise against any government that happens to be in power. Natal was no exception to the rule. And when her day of trial came, she had perforce to depend on the loyalty of the remainder of the people, and the strength of her own right hand. If the management of the Native races by Natal was worse than is here made out, how comes it that her entire Native population throughout the Boer War, which began but six, and ended four, years before the Rebellion, was as consistently loyal as it was throughout that protracted war; that Dinuzulu assistedas he did with scouts and levies (though not for the purpose of actual fighting); that, so far from wanting to rebel, the Chiefs offered their services, which, however, could not be accepted on the ground that the war was 'a white man's war'—and all this notwithstanding that the Colony had been invaded, and one of its principal towns besieged by the enemy for upwards of three months? Clearly, Natal's rule had not, at that time, become so unbearable as to cause the people to prefer a regime set up by Dinuzulu, or some other Zulu despot.

Under the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the fundamental cause was the introduction and imposition on the aborigines of a type of civilization radically different from their own. The Government, first Imperial, latterly Colonial, was necessarily the instrument whereby such civilization was introduced and imposed. Responsibility for all that occurred must, therefore, be thrown, as it was thrown by Natives, on the Government, even the breaking down of their social system through the unremitting effects of Missionary teaching, the undermining of the tribal system by European landlordism, the innumerable deleterious effects caused by degraded or dishonest classes of Europeans, and in other ways.

This establishment and promotion of Western Civilization operated in various ways on the Natives: (a) restrictions were imposed on former conditions or modes of life; (b) indiscriminate licence was extended to various sections, as well as to Europeans, whilst, at the same time, (c) obligations to conform to the new conditions of life were enforced.

Let us consider some of the principal causes of discontent that sprang from this action.

Under (a): Natives were prohibited from undergoing military service, or joining in various military occupations, which, as shown in Chapter IV., took up a very large portion of their time; they were precluded from leading the nomadic life customary with them for ages; individual kraalheads were restricted, by the settingup of a system of freehold tenure by Europeans, from going to live where they wished, and many of the old and recognized thoroughfares were closed by the fences put up; polygamy became more difficult because of the hut tax, and there was prescription in respect ofloboloclaims; the national Feast of the First-Fruits, as well as other feasts and social gatherings, were either stopped, or interfered with, not, however, without good reason; Chiefs' powers of criminal and civil jurisdiction were circumscribed, as also the control exercised by heads of families over their wives and children; diviners were prohibited from practising their calling; restrictions were imposed on hunting game, cutting wood, or making gardens in forests; and Natives were unable to enter towns, except when clad in European dress.

Under (b): Too many Chiefs were appointed, a number of these not being entitled by hereditary rank or position to the posts; usurpation by some European landlords of several of the functions of Chiefs, or otherwise imposing restrictions on their authority; making consent by all girls to marriage obligatory; permitting boys and girls to break away from their parents or guardians, in order to be converted or educated; creating undue facilities for women to obtain divorce, or break away from their homes to lead immoral lives, etc.; exaction of excessive rents by various European landlords; excessive charges by certain lawyers; too many Native herbalists allowed to practise, a large proportion being unqualified and unscrupulous; usury by certain Europeans, especially lawyers, farmers, and other employers of labour.

Under (c): In a Christian community, with children being converted to Christianity and educated, parents were obliged in various ways to adapt themselves more and more to the changing conditions, even though themselves against being converted or educated on European lines. Enlightenment, religious and secular, accentuated by Ethiopian propaganda, infused a spirit of equality in the people. This, in a polygamistic environment, was destructive of marital and parental authority, besidesundermining the authority, privileges and prestige of every Chief in the country. In the case of Dinuzulu, such influences would have been particularly acute and rapid.

Besides the inconveniences involved, the spectacle of a rapidly-disintegrating and decaying tribalism was always before the people, and, with this, the vanishing of cherished national ideals, traditions, beliefs, folklore, etc.

Other permanent obligations were the having to pay various taxes, rents, and other charges; to carry passes; to register births and deaths; the census-taking, 1904.

Under the same head, may be included other causes which were but inevitable where two such races lived together in the same country: Interference by certain Europeans with Native women and girls; communication of human and stock diseases formerly unknown,e.g.leprosy, small-pox, bubonic plague, consumption,—lung-sickness, rinderpest, East Coast Fever.[353]

Among miscellaneous causes were: Laying off large numbers of farms in Zululand for the occupation of Europeans; the inconsiderate manner in which the police, especially Native police, behaved towards Natives; punishment and removal of Chiefs without proper trial; obligation to work on roads and public works (isibalo); impoverishment of the people through the effects of locusts, rinderpest, East Coast Fever, etc.; introduction of indentured Indians, thereby supplanting Native labour. Of these, the laying off of farms in Zululand was far the most important.

The alienating of land in Zululand to Europeans has always been regarded by the royal house as a serious menace. Although liberal grants were made to mission societies and to the Boers, it was never intended that Europeans should obtain holdings in the heart of the country, as they did shortly before the Rebellion, and thereby break up the nation by subjecting individuals to the payment of rent, as in Natal. It will, therefore, beunderstood that the laying off of farms along the coast and elsewhere for sugar planting, etc., would have been deeply though silently resented by Dinuzulu as nominal head of the people.

In addition to the foregoing, the semi-educated class of Natives, known as Kolwas, had complaints, but as the people affected were comparatively few, there is no necessity for specifying them, except to point out that the charging of rents on mission reserves, and difficulties in obtaining (a) the franchise, (b) exemption in respect of certain children, (c) firearms, and (d) European liquor, were regarded by some as indications of being distrusted or unreasonably discriminated against.

As the root-cause of the Rebellion was, briefly, the attempt made to impose the European character and civilization on the Native races, the various causes above given were of a merely subsidiary or contributory nature. Hence it is unfair to charge Natal governments with failing to circumvent what, in the nature of the circumstances, was largely unavoidable, just as many similar causes now and for long existing in other parts of South Africa are more or less unavoidable.

When, however, through the operation of the foregoing causes, the people felt disposed to take up arms, other things were required before they wouldact, among these, what may be calledthe inciting cause. This, of course, was the poll tax. This is what tended to bring about combination. It gave the Natives heart, orubudoda(manliness) as they called it. It was precisely what they needed, in their loose, disintegrated state. And so, curiously enough, the poll tax played exactly the same part among them that a similar tax did in the Wat Tyler Rebellion in England in 1381, and as the 'greased cartridges' did in the Indian Mutiny of 1857. It is a mistake to speak of the poll tax as having caused the Rebellion; it was merely a contributory cause, and not among the most important of those that have been cited.

The principalmotiveof the Rebellion would appear to be the one indicated on pp. 506, 507. But there was alsoa general desire by the people for a form of government more in harmony with their national and individual aspirations. Reference should also be made to Ethiopian propaganda, especially the political cry "Africa for the Africans," the text of many an address shortly before the Insurrection. It was perpetually put forward, no doubt, in order to furnish people with a motive for opposing or counteracting European domination and alleged oppression. The cry was heard, not only in Natal, but throughout South Africa. Natives were told that the Europeans had forfeited the right to rule, and that it and the country had accordingly reverted once more to the Black House. There were yet other inducements, viz.: the Baqulusi having succeeded in massacring the commando at Holkrantz, thereby lowering the prestige of the Europeans in the eyes of Natives; the lessons of the Boer War, such as the guerilla tactics that were practised; and the contempt by Natives for Europeans, owing to the familiar manner in which many had been treated by British troops. There is no doubt that these motives also powerfully influenced the people.

Among theoccasionsmay be mentioned: Withdrawal of Imperial troops from Natal; inability of the Germans to suppress the rising in Damaraland (West Africa); sense of superiority felt by Natives through being much more numerous than the colonists; palpable growth of Dinuzulu's influence; general decay of the authority of Chiefs, kraal-owners,[354]etc.; increase of hooliganism and lawlessness; belief that such fastnesses as Nkandhla were impregnable; belief that they (Natives) were impervious to bullets; belief, engendered by the widely-spread pig-fowl-killing order, that the time had arrived when the white race must be driven out or exterminated.

(iii)Replies to Criticisms.

The way in which the campaign was conducted was sharply criticized by persons in England and elsewhere, chiefly from two points of view, viz. the disparity in losses sustained, and the rigour with which the rebels were dealt with. Now, it is one of the principal objects of a commander to prevent unnecessary loss to his side, and no part of his plans to make sacrifices merely because heavy punishment is being meted out to the enemy. The greater the injury inflicted, with the least loss to himself, is one of the highest marks of generalship, particularly where his opponent vastly exceeds him in numbers. As, in every military school, one finds it approved to strike effective blows at the enemy'smorale, under what circumstances can this be better done than when he is driven to finding himself out-generalled at every point, and losing more men than his adversary? What, more than cheaply-achieved successes, is better calculated to depress the exuberant spirits of barbarous rebels and sooner bring about their surrender? Justifiable or unjustifiable, rebellion should, in the interests of the community, be stamped out and stamped out thoroughly.

The losses of European troops in various Native wars in South Africa, particularly in recent times, have almost always been greater than those sustained by Natal in 1906, relatively to the personnel engaged.[355]When it is considered that the casualties sustained by the enemy totalled only about 2,300 in a four-month's campaign, with upwards of 9,000 European troops and some 6,000 Native loyalists engaged, it will be seen that the losses were proportionately less severe than in other South African Native wars.

The disparity in losses was accounted for primarily by the insurgents being in an unorganized condition. It is inevitable that, where hordes of more or less disorganized barbarians attack properly-trained troops, armed withmodern weapons, mortality among the former will be far greater than among the latter. One thing, however, is quite clear. Had the O.C. Troops not dealt with the situation in a prompt and resolute manner, but afforded opportunities to the rebels to augment their forces, the proportion of casualties would have been even more striking than it was.

Most of the criticism in question came as usual from a few noisy people in England, who quite forgot the absurdly few casualties that were sustained by the Imperial troops in the Zulu War, as compared with the number of Zulus who were killed; nor did they remember that Pretorius, at the famous battle of Blood River, had three men wounded (including himself), as against 3,000 Zulus killed. It is one of the ironies of life that persons wholly ignorant, or almost wholly ignorant, of local conditions, succeeded in getting many to attend to and believe their clamour. Such incidents as the cold-blooded attack on the Police at Mpanza were glazed over or forgotten by these zealots, whose chief glory consisted in traducing the motives and actions of their own kin to the best of their ability. Everything the savages did was right, everything that those of their own race did was wrong, wrong, not because of any inherent defect, but wrong just because they are white and not black. All murders, mutilations of corpses, looting, incendiarism and terrorization of loyalists were condoned. It occurred not to these 'judges' to study the facts. If the rebels did anything that wore the appearance of wrong-doing, the act was justified by asserting (wholly regardless of the facts) that the act was but a consequence of the commission of some greater wrong. No act was isolated and considered on its own merits. If Bambata waylaid 150 Police along a difficult road, firing a broadside into a twenty-men advanced guard at a distance of five yards, in the dark, before outbreak of hostility of any kind, the act was justified by the fact that the ringleader had been deposed from his chieftainship by the Government, and because he was but protesting against the imposition of a poll tax of £1 per head. Ifthe reasons why Bambata was deposed, or the circumstances under which the poll tax was levied, had been advanced, other excuses would have been found, and attempts made to justify at every point, with an ardour born of such as had not actually lived in the country and had nothing to lose.

The unbridled resentment and public defiance exhibited at Mapumulo, Umzinto, Nkandhla, Pietermaritzburg and Durban magistracies—at each of which places the Natives vastly outnumbered the civil authorities then present; the audacity of the murders of Hunt and Armstrong; and the still cooler attack at Mpanza,—with isolated, cold-blooded murders, such as Stainbank, Veal, Walters, Powell and Sangreid, accompanied by horrible mutilation (where this was possible),—were all these exhibitions of barbarity to have no effect whatever on the troops, most of whom had been born and bred in the country, and knew the place of the Native in the community?

Natal was being governed in accordance with Native law. Such condition naturally conferred on the higher race a position of privilege and ascendancy, whilst maintaining the Natives in a social system inherited from a far-off past. This eminence had, in the course of two generations, become settled or habitual. The Natives recognized it and had accommodated themselves thereto. When, therefore, the foregoing incidents occurred, they were rightly regarded as serious. This is one of the reasons why the shooting down of the rebels was occasionally as severe as it was, though not on nearly so large a scale as has been supposed.

There remains another and, perhaps, the chief explanation. The spectacle of a subject, lower and uncivilized race rising against its conquerors and lawful masters, with whom it had lived at peace for many years, could not fail to evoke the best energies of the latter to maintain its prestige, though to have to do this in the face of the odds possibly becoming one to ten, demanded the greatest energy, and a drawing on all available resources. It was not a time for half-measures. Rebellion had broken out.Rebellion by subjects, so long in a state of subjection, was expected to be capable of rapidly infecting the entire mass, unless sternly repressed. The possibility of universal massacres of women and children arose before the calmest minds. Such wanton butchery had taken place in the Matabele Rebellion in 1896, the Matabeles being, as is well known, off-shoots of the Zulus. It was a fire that had started, and in a country covered with long, dry grass. If allowed to spread, it would soon have given rise to winds that would have swept it still further along in every direction. Once out of control of their Chiefs, as many were known to have got, others would have followed the example. The best way of pandering to such condition was to have dealt leniently, patiently and mercifully with every transgressor. But, with the elemental forces of human fury let loose, Dinuzulu, as rebel or as loyalist, would have been unable to control or to check them; he was largely a figurehead. Nor, as has already been pointed out, were the ordinary Chiefs able to control. It, therefore, behoved the Government to deal with the situation promptly, and with the same severity that any wise man would be expected to use towards a fire threatening to destroy his house and all his belongings. That is why the ablest soldiers were employed. That is why McKenzie was placed in supreme command, and that is why he, almost in spite of himself, became the exponent of a drastic policy—the policy of necessity. The Government was manifestly under every obligation to protect the people, not less Native loyalists than members of its own and other European and Asiatic races. After all, there is such a law as that of self-preservation. That is what mainly warranted these undoubtedly severe, but unavoidable measures. And yet the troops were exceedingly well-disposed to the Zulu race as a whole. Satisfactory relations exist to-day between the Natives and the colonists, and will long continue to exist, unless petty, misguided policies be brought into practice.

Back to Index Next