SIHAYO, UMBILINI, AND THE MISSIONARIES IN ZULULAND.
Much has been said of late years concerning the duty imposed by our
superior civilisation upon us English, in our dealings with the South
African races, of checking amongst the latter such cruel and savage
practices as are abhorrent to Christian ideas and practices. We will
proceed to show how this duty has been performed by the Government of
Natal.
One of the commonest accusations brought against the Zulus, and
perhaps the most effectual in rousing English indignation and
disgust, is that of buying and selling women as wives, and the cruel
treatment of young girls who refuse to be thus purchased.
Without entering into the subject upon its merits, or inquiring
how many French and English girls yearly are, to all intents and
purposes, sold in marriage, and what amount of moral pressure is
brought to bear upon the reluctant or rebellious amongst them; or
whether they suffer more or less under the infliction than their wild
sisters in Zululand do under physical correction;—we may observe that
the terrors of the Zulu system have been very much exaggerated. That
cruel and tyrannical things have occasionally been done under it no
one will deny, still less that every effort should have been made
by us to introduce a better one. Amongst the Zulus, both in their
own country and in Natal, marriages are commonly arranged by the
parents, and the young people are expected to submit, as they would
be in civilised France. But the instance which came most directly
under the present writer’s own observation, is one rather tending to
prove that the custom is one which, although occasionally bearing
hardly upon individuals, has been too long the practice of the
people, and to which they have always been brought up, to be looked
upon by them as a crying evil, calling for armed intervention on the
part of England. In the early days of missionary work at Bishopstowe
(between 1860-70), five girls took refuge at the station within a few
days of each other, in order to avoid marriages arranged for them by
their parents, and objected to by them. They dreaded pretty forcible
coercion, although of course, in Natal, they could not actually
be put to death. They were, of course, received and protected at
Bishopstowe, clothed, and put to school, and there they might have
remained in safety for any length of time, or until they could return
home on their own terms. But the restraint of the civilised habits
imposed on them, however gently, and the obligation of learning
to read, sew, and sweep, etc., was too much for these wild young
damsels, accustomed at home to a free and idle life.[86] Within a
few weeks they all elected to return home and marry the very men on
whose account they had fled; and the conclusion finally arrived at
concerning them was, that their escapade was rather for the sake of
attaching a little additional importance to the surrender of their
freedom, than from any real objection to the marriages proposed for
them.
Now let us see what means had been taken by the English to institute
a better state of things and greater liberty for the women. In Natal
itself, of course, any serious act of violence committed to induce
a girl to marry would be punished by law, and girls in fear of such
violence could usually appeal for protection to the magistrates or
missionaries. Let us suppose that a girl, making such an appeal,
receives protection, and is married to the man of her own choice by
English law and with Christian rites. What is the consequence to her?
She has no rights as a wife, in fact she is not lawfully a wife at
all, nor have her children any legal claims upon their father; the
law of the colony protects the rights of native women married by
native custom, which it virtually encourages by giving no protection
at all to those who contract marriages by the English, or civilised
system.[87]
So much for our dealings with the Zulus of Natal; and even less can
be said for us concerning those over the border.
Until quite lately the practice existed in the colony of
surrendering to Zulu demands refugee _women_, as well as cattle, as
“property,” under an order from the Natal Government, which was in
force at the time of Sir H. Bulwer’s arrival, but was at some time
after rescinded.[88]
It was well known that, by the laws of Zululand, the offence of a
woman’s escaping from her husband with another man was punishable by
death, therefore unhappy creatures thus situated were delivered up
by the Natal Government to certain death, and this practice had been
continued through a course of many years.
The law being altered in this respect, and cattle only returned, Sir
H. Bulwer writes, on February 3rd, 1877: “Some few weeks ago I had
occasion to send a message to Cetywayo on account of the forcible
removal from Natal territory of a Zulu girl, who had lately taken
refuge in it from the Zulu country. A party of Zulus had crossed
the Tugela River in pursuit, and taken the girl by force back to
Zululand. I therefore sent to inform Cetywayo of this lawless act on
the part of some of his subjects” (1776, pp. 86, 87); and Cetshwayo
replies with thanks, saying that he knew nothing previously of what
had happened, and that “should anything of the same kind take place
to-morrow he (the Governor of Natal) must still open my ears with
what is done by my people.”
This is apparently all. There is no attempt to make a serious
national matter of it; no demand for the surrender of the offenders,
nor for the payment of a fine. Nor is there even a warning that any
future occurrence of the same description will be viewed in a more
severe light. Sir Henry “informs” Cetshwayo of what has taken place,
and Cetshwayo politely acknowledges the information, and that the
action taken by his people deserves censure. “I do not send and take
by force,” he says; “why should my people do so? It is not right.”
Eighteen months later, on July 28th, 1878, a similar case was
reported. A wife of the chief Sihayo had left him and escaped into
Natal. She was followed by a party of Zulus, under Mehlokazulu, the
chief son of Sihayo, and his brother, seized at the kraal where she
had taken refuge, and carried back to Zululand, where she was put to
death, in accordance with Zulu law.
The Zulus who seized her did no harm to Natal people or property;
in fact their only fault towards England was that of following and
seizing her on Natal soil, an act which for many years, and until
quite lately, they would have been permitted to do, and assisted in
doing, by the border Government officials. A week later the same
young men, with two other brothers and an uncle, captured in like
manner another refugee wife of Sihayo, in the company of the young
man with whom she had fled. This woman was also carried back, and is
supposed to have been put to death likewise; the young man with her,
although guilty in Zulu eyes of a most heinous crime, punishable with
death, was safe from them on English soil—they did not touch him. But
by our own practice for years past, of surrendering _female_ refugees
as _property_, we had taught the Zulus that we regarded women as
cattle.
While fully acknowledging the savagery of the young men’s actions,
and the necessity of putting a stop to such for the future, it must
be conceded that, having so long countenanced the like, we should
have given fair notice that, for the future, it would be an act of
aggression on us for a refugee of either sex to be followed into our
territory, before proceeding to stronger measures.
Sir Henry Bulwer, indeed, though taking a decided view of the young
men’s offence, plainly understood that it was an individual fault,
and not a political action for the performance of which the king
was responsible. “There is no reason whatsoever as yet to believe
that these acts have been committed with the consent or knowledge of
the king,”[89] he says (2220, p. 125), and his message to Cetshwayo
merely _requests_ that he will send in the ringleaders of the party
to be tried by the law of the colony.
On a previous occasion the king had, of his own accord, sent a Zulu
named Jolwana to the Natal Government to be punished by it for the
murder of a white man in the Zulu country. Jolwana was returned upon
his hands with the message that he could not be tried in Natal as he
was a Zulu subject. Under these circumstances it was not unnatural
that Cetshwayo should have taken the opportunity, apparently offered
him by the use of the word _request_, of substituting some other
method of apology for the offence committed than that of delivering
up the young men, who, as he afterwards said, he was afraid would be
“sjambokked” (flogged).
Cetshwayo’s first answer is merely one acknowledging the message, and
regretting the truth of the accusation brought by it. He allows that
the young men deserve punishment, and he engages to send indunas of
his own to the Natal Government on the subject; but he deprecates the
matter being looked upon in a more serious light than as the “act of
rash boys,” who in their zeal for their father’s house (? honour) did
not think what they were doing.
About this date, August, 1878, when all sorts of wild reports
were flying about, in and out of official documents, relative to
Cetshwayo’s supposed warlike preparations, he had ordered that _none
of his people should carry arms on pain of death_.
This was in consequence of a circumstance which had occurred some
months before (January, 1878), when during the Umkosi, or feast of
first-fruits, a great Zulu gathering which annually takes place at
the king’s kraal, two of the regiments fell out and finally came
to blows, resulting in the death of some men on either side. Sir
B. Frere says, in his correspondence with the Bishop (p. 4), that
_many hundred men were killed_ on this occasion; but Mr. F. Colenso,
who happened to be there a few days after the fight, heard from a
white man, who had helped to remove the dead, that about fifty were
killed. In consequence of this, “an order had gone forth, forbidding
native Zulus, when travelling, to carry arms, nothing but switches
being allowed. A fire took place, which burned the grass over Panda’s
grave,[90] and the doctors declared that the spirits of Dingane and
Chaka had stated that they view with surprise and disgust the conduct
of the Zulus at the present day in fighting when called before
their king; that this was the reason Panda’s grave was burned; and
such things would continue until they learned to be peaceful among
themselves, and wait until they are attacked by other natives before
spilling blood.”
Cetshwayo’s next message, September 9th (2260, p. 32), after he had
inquired into the matter of Sihayo’s sons, acknowledges again that
they had done wrong, but observes that he was glad to find that they
had hurt no one belonging to the English. What they had done was
done without his knowledge. The _request_ of the Natal Government
concerning the surrender of the offenders, he said, should be laid
before the great men of the Zulu people, to be decided upon by them;
_he could not do it alone_.
He finally, with full and courteous apologies in the same tone,
begs that the Natal Government will accept, instead of the persons
of the young men, a fine of fifty pounds, which he sent down by his
messengers, but which was promptly refused. Sir Henry Bulwer appears
to have been inclined to allow of the substitution of a larger fine
for the surrender of the culprits (2222, p. 173); but Sir B. Frere
insists on severer measures, saying: “I think it quite necessary that
the delivery up to justice of the offenders in this case should have
been _demanded_,[91] and should now be peremptorily insisted on,
together with a fine for the delay in complying with the reiterated
_demand_.”
John Dunn, who is supposed to have advised the king to send money as
an atonement, affirms that the invasion had been mutual, fugitives
from justice having been fetched out of Zululand by Natal officers;
and he (Dunn) asks whether outraged husbands, even amongst civilised
people, are prone to pay much respect to the rights of nations when
upon the track of their unfaithful spouses. Plainly, neither he nor
the king looked upon the matter in so serious a light as Sir Bartle
Frere chose to do when he said, September 30th, 1878 (2220, p.
280), “and, unless apologised and atoned for by compliance with the
Lieut.-Governor’s demands (?) that the leader of the murderous gangs
shall be given up to justice, it will be necessary to send to the
Zulu king _an ultimatum, which must put an end to pacific relations
with our neighbours_.”[92]
Sir M. Hicks-Beach, in reply to Sir B. Frere’s last-quoted despatch,
writes, November 21st: “The abduction and murder of the Zulu woman
who had taken refuge in Natal is undoubtedly a serious matter, and
no sufficient reparation for it has yet been made. But I observe that
Cetshwayo has expressed his regret for this occurrence; and although
the compensation offered by him was inadequate, there would seem
to have been nothing in his conduct with regard to it which would
preclude the hope of a satisfactory arrangement.”—(P. P. [C. 2220],
p. 320).
But the whole of Sir Bartle Frere’s statements at this period
concerning Cetshwayo are one-sided, exaggerated, or entirely
imaginary accusations, which come in the first instance with force
from a man of his importance, but for which not the slightest grounds
can be traced in any reliable or official source. He brings grave
charges against the king, which are absolutely contradicted by the
official reports from which he draws his information; he places
before the public as actual fact what, on investigation, is plainly
nothing more than his own opinion of what Cetshwayo thinks, wishes,
or intends, and what his thoughts, wishes, and intentions may be at
a future period. Every circumstance is twisted into a proof of his
inimical intentions towards Natal, the worst motives are taken for
granted in all he does. When the king’s messages were sent through
the ordinary native messengers between him and the Government of
Natal, they are termed mere “verbal” messages (as what else should
they be?), not “satisfactory or binding;” when they were sent
through Mr. John Dunn they were called “unofficial,” although Mr.
Dunn had been repeatedly recognised, and by Sir B. Frere himself,
as an official means of communication with Cetshwayo on matters of
grave importance; and, when Mr. Dunn writes, on his own account, his
opinion that the “boys” will not be given up, Sir B. Frere calls his
letter “a similar informal message (_i.e._ from the king), couched
in insolent and defiant terms.” In nothing that passed between the
king and the Government of Natal during this whole period is there
one single word, on Cetshwayo’s part, which could possibly be thus
described. There are, indeed, many apologies and entreaties to
the Government to be satisfied with some other atonement for the
fault committed than the surrender of the culprits, and there is
a great deal from various sources, official and otherwise, about
cattle collected, even beyond the demands of the Government, as a
propitiation; but of Sir B. Frere’s “semi-sarcastic, insolent, and
defiant” messages not one word.
It would take many pages to point out how utterly misleading is
every word spoken by the High Commissioner on this subject, but to
those who are curious in the matter, and in proof of the truth of
our present statements, we can only recommend the South African
Blue-books of 1878-79. We cannot, however, better illustrate our
meaning than by a quotation from Lord Blachford (_Daily News_, March
26th, 1872): “What did Sir B. Frere say to all this? He was really
ashamed to answer that he did not know. He had studied the series
of despatches in which Sir B. Frere defended his conduct, and he
willingly acknowledged the exuberance of literary skill which they
exhibited. But when he tried to grapple with them he felt like a man
who was defending himself with a stick against a cloud of locusts.
He might knock down one, and knock down another, but ‘the cry is
still they come.’ His only consolation was, that they did not appear
to have convinced Her Majesty’s Government, whose replies were from
beginning to end a series of cautions, qualifications, and protests.”
On turning to the subject of the robber chief, Umbilini, and his
raids, we are at once confronted by the fact that he was not a Zulu
at all, but a Swazi, and a claimant to the Swazi throne. His claim
had not been approved by the majority of the Swazi nation, and his
brother Umbandeni, the present king, was appointed instead. Umbilini,
however, was not a man to quietly sink into an inferior position, and
having taken possession, with his followers, of some rocky caves in
the borderland, forming an almost impregnable fortress, he lived for
many years, much in the fashion of the border freebooters of whose
doings we read in Scottish history, making raids upon his neighbours
on all sides, and carrying off cattle, women, and children. His
expeditions were most frequently directed towards the party against
him in his own country, but neither his Boer nor Zulu neighbours
escaped entirely. On first leaving Swaziland he went to offer homage
to the Zulu king, and was given land to settle upon in Zululand. No
doubt Cetshwayo looked upon a warrior of Umbilini’s known prowess as
rather an important vassal, especially in the event of a war between
him and his ancient enemies the Swazis, in which case Umbilini’s
adherence would probably divide the enemy amongst themselves. But
he appears to have been in perpetual trouble on account of his
turbulent vassal, and to have given him up altogether at one time.
After a raid committed by him upon the Dutch, the latter applied to
Cetshwayo to have him delivered up to them. “I could not do this,”
says Cetshwayo; “I should have got a bad name if I had done so, and
people would have said it was not good to _konza_ (pay homage) to
Cetshwayo. I therefore refused, but paid one hundred head of cattle
for the offence he had committed;”[93] and Cetshwayo’s own account to
Mr. Fynney is as follows (1961):
“Umbilini came to me for refuge from his own people, the Ama-Swazis,
and I afforded him shelter; what would the world have said had I
denied it to him? But, while allowing him to settle in the land as my
subject, I have always been particularly careful to warn my people
not to afford him any assistance or become mixed up in any quarrel
between him and the Boers; and although I do not deny that he is my
subject, still I will not endorse his misdeeds. When Mr. Rudolph
complained to me of the trouble Umbilini was giving, I told Mr.
Rudolph to kill him—I should not shield him; this the Boers tried to
do, but, as usual, made a mess of it.”
In fact, on a repetition of Umbilini’s offence against the Boers,
Cetshwayo refused to be longer responsible for his acts, and gave the
Dutch permission to kill him. They fought him, and were beaten by him
with his small band of only nineteen men. On a subsequent occasion,
after a raid committed by Umbilini upon the Swazis, Cetshwayo was so
incensed that he sent out a party to take and kill him; but he got
notice beforehand, and escaped.
Sir Bartle Frere chooses to consider the king responsible for all
Umbilini’s doings, and even Sir H. Bulwer says: “The king disowned
Umbilini’s acts.... But there is nothing to show that he has in any
way punished him, and, on the contrary, it is quite certain (of
which ‘certainty,’ however, no proofs are forthcoming) that even if
Umbilini did not act with the express orders of Cetshwayo, he did so
with the knowledge that what he was doing would be agreeable to the
king” (2260, p. 46).
This accusation was made in January, 1879, and refers to raids of the
previous year, by which time, as the Swazis were our allies and the
Boers our subjects, Umbilini’s raids in all directions except those
on the Zulu side had become offences to us for which Cetshwayo was
held responsible. In point of fact, it was no such simple matter to
“punish” Umbilini, whose natural fortress could be held by a couple
of men against anything short of the cannon which Cetshwayo did
not possess. Nor was it singular that, at a time when the king had
already strong suspicions that his country was about to be attacked,
he should not have wasted his strength in subduing one who, in the
event of war, would be most useful to himself.
That, when the evil day came and his country was invaded, Cetshwayo
should have made common cause with all who would or could assist him
is a mere matter of course, and it was but natural that so bold and
skilful a leader as Umbilini has proved himself to be should then
have been promoted and favoured by the unfortunate king.
We need scarcely say more upon this point, beyond calling our
readers’ attention to the fact that the expressions “_Zulu raids_,”
“_indiscriminate massacres_,” “_violation by the Zulus of Transvaal
territory_,” “_horrible cruelties_” (2308, p. 62, and elsewhere),
so freely scattered through the despatches written to prove the
criminality of the Zulu king, _all, without exception_, apply to acts
committed either by Umbilini and his (chiefly) _Swazi_ followers, or
by Manyonyoba, a small but independent native chief, living north of
the Pongolo.[94]
The “case of Messrs. Smith and Deighton” is the only charge against
the Zulu king, in connection with Natal, which we have now to
consider, and it is one in which, as we shall see, a great deal was
made of a very small matter.
Mr. Smith, a surveyor in the Colonial Engineer’s department, was on
duty inspecting the road down to the Tugela, near Fort Buckingham.
The Zulu mind being in a very excited state at the time—owing to
the obvious preparation for war, of which they heard reports from
Natal, troops stationed at Greytown, and war-ships seen close to
the Zulu shore, as though looking for a landing-place—Mr. Smith was
specially instructed to proceed upon his errand alone, and with great
discretion. By way of carrying out these directions he took with
him only a trader—Deighton by name—and their discretion was shown by
“taking no notice” when, having arrived at the drift into Zululand,
they were questioned by Zulus, who were on guard there in consequence
of rumours that our troops were about to cross.[95]
Mr. Wheelwright (a Government official), to whom the matter was
reported a week after it occurred, not by Mr. Smith, the principal
person concerned, but by Mr. Deighton, says: “The fact that the two
white men took no notice of ‘lots of Zulus shouting out’ from their
own bank, ‘What do you want there?’ but ‘walked quietly along,’[96]
as if they had not heard, or as if they were deaf, very naturally
confirmed the suspicion that they were about no good.”
The consequence was, that when the white men reached an islet in the
middle of the river (or rather one which is generally in the middle
of the stream when it is full—it was low at the time), they were
seized by the Zulus, and detained by them for about an hour and a
half, whilst all sorts of questions were asked: “What are you doing
there?” “What had the soldiers come to Greytown for?” “What did the
white men want coming down there? There were two down not long ago,
then other two only a few days since, and now there is other two; you
must come for some reason.”
However, after a time, they were allowed to depart, an attempt made
to take their horses from them being prevented by the induna of the
Zulus.
Sir Bartle Frere does not seem to have thought very much of the
matter at first, for Sir M. Hicks-Beach, when acknowledging his
despatch reporting it, says (2220, p. 320): “I concur with you in
attributing no special importance to the seizure and temporary arrest
of the surveyors, which was partly due to their own indiscretion, and
was evidently in no way sanctioned by the Zulu authorities.”
But a little later—although with no fresh facts before him—Sir B.
Frere takes a very different tone (2222, p. 176).
“I cannot at all agree with the lenient view taken by the
Lieut.-Governor of this case. Had it stood quite alone, a prompt
apology and punishment of the offenders might have been sufficient.
As the case stands, it was only one of many instances of insult and
threatening, such as cannot possibly be passed over without severe
notice being taken of them. What occurred,” he says, “whether done by
the king’s order, or only by his border-guards, and subsequently only
tacitly approved by his not punishing the offenders, seems to me a
most serious insult and outrage, and should be severely noticed.”
There is no sign that it was ever brought to the king’s knowledge,
and when Sir B. Frere speaks of its being “only one of many
instances of insult and threatening,” he is drawing largely on his
imagination, as there is _no other recorded at all_, unless he means
to refer to the “notices to quit” in the disputed territory of which
we have already treated.
We must now consider the points connected with the internal
management of the Zulu country, which have generally been looked upon
as a partial excuse for our invasion. Foremost amongst these is the
infraction of the so-called “coronation promises,” of which we have
spoken in a previous chapter. Frequent rumours were current in Natal
that the king, in defiance of the said promises, was in the habit of
shedding the blood of his people upon the smallest provocation, and
without any form of trial. Such stories of his inhuman atrocities
were circulated in the colony that many kind-hearted and gentle
people were ready to think that war would be a lesser evil. Yet,
whenever one of these stories was examined into or traced to its
source, it turned out either to be purely imaginary, or to have for
its foundation some small act of more or less arbitrary authority,
the justice of which we might possibly question, but to which no one
would apply the words “barbarities,” “savage murders,” etc.
An instance of the manner in which the Zulu king has obtained
his character of “a treacherous and bloodthirsty sovereign,”[97]
came under the notice of the present writer about December of
last year (1878). Happening to be on a visit to some friends in
Pietermaritzburg, and hearing them mention Cetshwayo’s cruelties,
I observed that I did not much credit them, as I had never yet met
anyone who knew of them from any trustworthy source. I was met with
the assurance that their “kitchen-Kafir,” Tom, from whom they had
received their accounts, was a personal witness, having himself
escaped from a massacre, and they vouched for the truthfulness of
the man’s character. I asked and obtained permission to question
the man in his own language, being myself anxious to find any real
evidence on the subject, especially as, at that time—with military
preparations going on on every side—it was apparent to all that “we”
intended war, and one would have been glad to discover that there
was any justification for it on our side. The same evening I took an
opportunity of interrogating “Tom,” saying, “So I hear that you know
all about this wicked Zulu king. Tell me all about it.” Whereupon the
man launched out into a long account of the slaughter of his people,
from which not even infants were spared, and from which he was one of
the few who had escaped. He had plainly been accustomed to tell the
tale (doubtless a true one), and there were touches in it concerning
the killing of the children which showed that he had been in the
habit of recounting it to tender-hearted and horror-struck English
mothers. When he had finished his tale I asked him when all the
horrors which he had described had taken place. “Oh!” he replied, “it
was at the time of the fight between Cetshwayo and Umbulazi (1856);
that was when I left Zululand.”
“And you have never been there since?”
“No; I should be afraid to go, for Cetshwayo kills always.”
“How do you know that?” I inquired, for he had started upon a fresh
account of horrors relating to the time at which he was speaking.
“Oh! I know it is true,” was the ready and confident reply, “because
the white people here in ’Maritzburg tell me so out of the papers.”
In point of fact the man, on whose word to my own knowledge rested
the belief of a considerable circle of the citizens, could only give
personal evidence concerning what happened at the time of the great
civil war, when Zululand was in such confusion that it would not be
easy to distribute responsibility, and when Cetshwayo himself was a
young man in the hands of his warriors. All he could tell of a later
date he had himself learnt from “white people” in the town, who,
again, had gathered their information from the newspapers; and Bishop
Schreuder, long resident in Zululand, says: “I had not with my own
eyes seen any corpse, and personally only knew of them said to have
been killed.... I myself had my information principally from the same
sources as people in Natal, and often from Natal newspapers.”
The king’s own reply to these accusations may be taken entire from
Mr. Fynney’s report on July 4th, 1877 (1961), with the portions of
the message delivered by the latter to which it refers:
“You have repeatedly acknowledged the house of England to be a great
and powerful house, and have expressed yourself as relying entirely
upon the good-will and power of that house for your own strength and
the strength of the country over which you are king; in fact you have
always looked towards the English Government.
“Which way is your face turned to-day? Do you look, and still desire
to look, in the same direction? Do you rely on the good-will and
support of the British Government as much as you formerly did?
“The Government of Natal has repeatedly heard that you have not
regarded the agreements you entered into with that Government,
through its representative, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, on the occasion
of your coronation. These agreements you entered into with the sun
shining around you, but since that time you have practised great
cruelties upon your people, putting great numbers of them to death.
What do you say?”
In reply to the above, Cetshwayo said: “I have not changed; I still
look upon the English as my friends, as they have not yet done or
said anything to make me feel otherwise. They have not in any way
turned my heart, therefore I feel that we have still hold of each
other’s hands. But you must know that from the first the Zulu nation
grew up alone, separate and distinct from all others, and has never
been subject to any other nation; Tyaka (Chaka) was the first to
find out the English and make friends with them; he saved the lives
of seven Englishmen from shipwreck at the mouth of the Umfolosi, he
took care of them, and from that day even until now the English and
Zulu nations have held each other’s hands. The English nation is
a just one, and we are together” (we are at one with each other).
“I admit that people have been killed. There are three classes of
wrong-doers that I kill—(1) the abatakati—witches, poisoners, etc.;
(2) those who take the women of the great house, those belonging to
the royal household; and (3) those who kill, hide, or make away with
the king’s cattle. I mentioned these three classes of wrong-doers to
Somtseu (Sir T. Shepstone), when he came to place me as king over the
Zulu nation, as those who had always been killed. I told him that it
was our law, and that three classes of wrong-doers I would kill, and
he replied: ‘Well, I cannot put aside a standing law of the land.’
I always give a wrong-doer three chances, and kill him if he passes
the last. Evil-doers would go over my head if I did not punish them,
and that is our mode of punishing.... I do not see that I have in any
way departed from, or broken in anything, the compact I made with the
Natal Government through Somtseu.”
The next subject to be considered is that of the treatment of the
missionaries and their converts in Zululand.
Sir T. Shepstone, in his account of what passed at the installation
of Cetshwayo, writes as follows (C. 1137, p. 19): “The fourth point
was the position of Christian missionaries and their converts.
Cetywayo evidently regretted that they had ever been admitted at all,
and had made up his mind to reduce their numbers by some means or
other.... He said they had committed no actual wrong, but they did
no good, and that the tendency of their teaching was mischievous; he
added that he did not wish to harm them, that they might take all
their property with them and go in peace.
“I suggested that they could not take their houses away. He replied
that the materials of which they were built—stone, earth, and
wood—were all Zulu property, but they might take them also if they
wished. He thought that four, however, were entitled to greater
consideration; these were Bishop Schreuder and Mr. Oftebro, of the
Norwegian Mission, because of their long residence—more than twenty
years—and their services in other ways than as missionaries; and
Bishop Wilkinson and Mr. Robertson, because they had brought an
introduction from the Governor of Natal; but that the teaching even
of these was mischievous, and could not be received by the Zulus
without injury.... The advantages of education, the value to a man
of being able to read and write, and the extreme inconvenience of
ignorance were discussed. Cetywayo heartily concurred in all that was
said on these subjects, and said it was education made the English
so great; and that, if he thought he could remember what he might
learn, he would be taught himself; and he expressed regret that the
missionaries did not confine themselves to that kind of teaching.
“The result of our conversations on the subject of the missionaries
was an understanding that those who were already in the country
should not be interfered with, and that, if any of them committed
an offence for which the offender might be considered deserving of
expulsion, the case should be submitted to the Government of Natal,
and its assent be received before the sentence should be carried
out. It is necessary to explain that the Zulus have no idea of
inflicting any punishment upon a missionary except that of expulsion
from the country. _I did not consider it wise to attempt to make any
arrangements in favour of native converts._”[98]
What was meant by the teaching of the missionaries being
_mischievous_ is fully explained by the remarks of the prime
ministers Mnyamana and Vumandaba, reported by Mr. Fynney in 1877
(1961, p. 47) as follows:
“We will not allow the Zulus to become so-called Christians. It is
not the king says so, but every man in Zululand. If a Zulu does
anything wrong, he at once goes to a mission station, and says he
wants to become a Christian; if he wants to run away with a girl,
he becomes a Christian; if he wishes to be exempt from serving
the king, he puts on clothes, and is a Christian; if a man is an
umtagati (evil-doer), he becomes a Christian. All these people are
the subjects of the king; and who will keep a cow for another to milk
it?... The missionaries desire to set up another power in the land,
and, as Zululand has only one king, that cannot be allowed.”
Mr. Fynney continues: “Before I left Zululand (before July, 1877)
most of the missionaries had decided upon leaving; some had already
left, not from any fear of personal danger, but because in some cases
they have been deserted by the natives on their stations; in others
the native converts were uneasy, and wished to leave; and from the
attitude of both the king and chiefs, they could plainly see that all
chances of making fresh converts, or even retaining those around
them, were for the present at an end.... I find there were all sorts
of wild (?) rumours going about from station to station—one that
the British Government intended to annex Zululand at once. I am
afraid that this and the like rumours have done harm. Several of the
missionaries have been frequently to the king of late, and, as he
told me, have worried him to such an extent that he does not want to
see them any more.”[99]
In August of the same year Lord Carnarvon requests Sir Henry Bulwer
to make a special point of causing “the missionaries to understand
distinctly that Her Majesty’s Government cannot undertake to compel
the king to permit the maintenance of the mission stations in
Zululand,” and to recommend them, if they cannot carry on their work
without armed support, to leave it for the present.
Sir Henry Bulwer writes (2000, p. 33):
“The action taken by some of the missionaries in leaving that country
has apparently proved not only unnecessary, but ill-advised for their
own interests. The king was not sorry that they should go, but he was
angry with them for going.”[100] and on January 26th, 1878, a message
arrived from Cetshwayo, concerning those that remained, to this
effect (2100, p. 61):
“Cetshwayo states that he wishes His Excellency to know that he is
not pleased with the missionaries in the Zulu country, as he finds
out that they are the cause of much harm, and are always spreading
false reports about the Zulu country, and (he) would wish His
Excellency to advise them to remove, as they do no good.”
Shortly after the Rev. Mr. Oftebro and Dr. Oftebro, Norwegian
missionaries from Zululand, were granted an interview by the
Lieut.-Governor of Natal for the purpose of laying their case before
His Excellency. The king, they said, had informed them that he was
now quite persuaded that they had communicated to the governors of
Natal and the Transvaal, and to the editors of the public papers in
Natal, all important matters that occurred in the Zulu country—that
the accounts they sent were not even truthful—and that he had
believed these missionaries were “men,” but that he now found them to
be his enemies.
They believed that amongst the “white men,” from whom he had obtained
his information, were Mr. John Mullins, a trader, and Mr. F. E.
Colenso, a son of the Bishop of Natal, who had been at the king’s
kraal for some six days and who, they said, “_had translated, for the
king’s information, accounts of doings in the Zulu country_, from
several newspapers of the colony.” This last, as it happens, was pure
fiction. Sir Henry Bulwer, indeed, believed it at the time, and wrote
upon it as follows (2100, p. 89):
“I notice in Messrs. Smith and Colenso’s letter to the Earl of
Carnarvon, a statement to the effect that the disposition and
dealings of Cetshwayo had been sedulously misrepresented by the
missionaries and by the Press. And this statement tends, I am afraid,
to confirm the belief that Mr. F. E. Colenso, when he lately visited
the Zulu country, ... made certain representations regarding the
missionaries in Zululand, which were greatly calculated to prejudice
the king’s mind against them, or against some of them.”
But Mr. Colenso, on seeing for the first time the above statements in
the Blue-book, wrote to Sir M. Hicks-Beach as follows (2220, p. 318):
“The suspicions expressed by the missionaries as to my proceedings
are entirely without foundation in fact. So far from attempting to
prejudice the king’s mind against them, I confined myself, in the
little I did say to Cetshwayo on the subject, to supporting their
cause with him. The king had received, through some of his various
channels of information, an account of the numerous contributions
made by missionaries and others living under his protection in
Zululand, to the colonial newspapers, and in particular, of an
exaggerated and sensational report, written by the Zululand
correspondent of _The Natal Mercury_, of the catastrophe which
occurred at the annual Feast of Firstfruits some ten days before
my last conversation with the king, which report he attributed to
the Rev. Mr. Robertson, from the fact that his waggon-driver was
the only white man present on the occasion, except Dr. Oftebro, Mr.
Mullins, and Mr. Dunn. Cetshwayo expressed himself as indignant at
the conduct of Mr. Robertson, who, he said, had never, during his
long residence in Zululand, received anything but good treatment at
the hands of his (Cetshwayo’s) father and himself, and, he added,
‘I have borne with him too long.’ To this I replied that, if he had
any distinct ground of complaint against Mr. Robertson, he (the king)
should get it set down in writing, and send it to His Excellency the
Lieut.-Governor of Natal; and I wished him to understand that any
different course would be productive of no good effect. I then told
Cetshwayo, omitting further reference to Mr. Robertson, that in my
opinion the presence of the missionaries as a body in his country
was a great advantage to him, and that they merited his protection.
He disclaimed having ever treated them with anything but great
consideration.”
The particular statement of the two missionaries Oftebro, concerning
the translation of newspapers, also Mr. Colenso specially and
distinctly contradicts, saying that he had no newspapers with him nor
extracts of newspapers, nor were any such read to Cetshwayo in his
presence.
Sir H. Bulwer states, at the request of the Messrs. Oftebro (2100,
p. 61), that no member of the Norwegian mission had supplied this
Government with information as above. But it does not follow that
no such communications had been made to Sir B. Frere and Lord
Carnarvon. Missionaries had written anonymously to the colonial
papers, and the account in _The Natal Mercury_ of the fight at the
Umkosi was attributed by Cetshwayo, not without reason, to the Rev.
E. Robertson. The tone of this letter, and its _accuracy_, may be
gathered from the following extract, referring to the land which,
in the opinion of the Commissioners, “was by right belonging to the
Zulus.”
“Never was a more preposterous demand made upon any Government than
that which Cetshwayo is now making upon the English Government of
the Transvaal.... For be it remembered that, until very lately, the
Zulus have never occupied any portion of it, (!) and even now very
partially. It is most earnestly to be hoped that Sir T. Shepstone,
while doing all in his power to keep the peace, _will be equally firm
in resisting the unjust pretensions of the Zulus_.”[101]
How far the Zulu king was justified in his opinion that the
missionaries were not his friends may be gathered from the above, and
from the replies to Sir B. Frere’s appeal to the “missionaries of all
denominations” for their opinions on native politics, as published in
the Blue-books (2316), of which the following examples may be given:
From letter of the Rev. P. D. Hepburn, December 17th, 1878: “All
in these parts are quiet, and are likely to remain quiet, if His
Excellency overthrows the Zulu chief, and disarms the remaining
Zulus. The Zulus are very warlike; will attack in front, flank, and
rear. They are, and have been, the terror of the neighbouring tribes
since the days of Chaka.[102] Only the utter destruction of the Zulus
can secure future peace in South Africa. May His Excellency not allow
himself to be deceived by the Zulu chief Cetywayo.”
“On full inquiry it will be found that our late war, (Kaffraria)
here was to a great extent attributable to Zulu influence.[103] If
our forces suffer defeat at Natal, all native tribes in South Africa
will rise against us. I am a man of peace; I hate war; but if war,
let there be no dawdling and sentimental nonsense.
“True and faithful to God, our Queen, and the interests of the
empire, we have the approbation of God, our Queen, and our own
conscience. I would have much liked had there been a regiment of
British cavalry at Natal. Sword in hand, the British are irresistible
over all natives. The battle at the Gwanga in 1846, under Sir Henry
Darrell, lasted only about fifteen minutes; about four hundred Kafirs
were cut down....
“God, our God, put it into the minds of our rulers that all tribes in
south-east and east Africa must submit to British power, and that it
is the interest of all Africans to do so. Heathenism must perish; God
wills it so.”[104]
These remarks are from a missionary in Kaffraria, but the tone of
these in Zululand is the same, or even worse. Compare the following
statement made to the Natal Government by two native converts from
the Etshowe mission station—Mr. Oftebro’s (1883, p. 2): “We know that
as many a hundred (Zulus) in one day see the sun rise, but don’t see
it go down.... The people, great and small, are tired of the rule
of Cetshwayo, by which he is finishing his people. The Zulu army is
not what it was, there are only six full regiments. Cetshwayo had
by his rule made himself so disliked, that they knew of no one, and
especially of the headmen, who would raise a hand to save him from
ruin, no matter from what cause.”
Mr. John Shepstone adds, April 27th, 1877 (p. 4): “The above was
confirmed only yesterday by reliable authority, who added that a
power such as the English, stepping in now, would be most welcome to
the Zulus generally, through the unpopularity of the king, by his
cruel and reckless treatment of his subjects.” And Mr. Fynney, in the
report already quoted from, says:
“The king appeared to have a very exaggerated idea both of his
power, the number of his warriors, and their ability as such....
While speaking of the king as having exaggerated ideas as to the
number of his fighting-men, I would not wish to be understood as
underrating the power of the Zulu nation.... I am of opinion that
King Cetywayo could bring six thousand men into the field at a short
notice, great numbers armed with guns; but the question is, would
they fight?... I am of opinion that it would greatly depend against
whom they were called to fight.... While the Zulu nation, to a man,
would have willingly turned out to fight either the Boers or the
Ama-Swazi, the case would be very different, I believe, in the event
of a misunderstanding arising between the British Government and the
Zulu nation.... I further believe, from what I heard, that a quarrel
with the British Government would be the signal for a general split
up amongst the Zulus, and the king would find himself deserted by the
majority of those upon whom he would at present appear to rely.”
While Sir T. Shepstone says, November 30th, 1878 (2222, p. 175): “I
will, however, add my belief that the Zulu power is likely to fall to
pieces when touched.”
Such were the opinions given by men supposed to be intimately
acquainted with Zulu character and feeling, one of them being _the_
great authority on all native matters; and on such statements did
Sir Bartle Frere rely when he laid his scheme for the Zulu War.
How absolutely ignorant, how foolishly mistaken, were these “blind
leaders of the blind” has been amply proved by the events of 1879.
We need not enter very fully into the accusations brought by the
missionaries against the Zulu king of indiscriminate slaughter of
native converts for their religion’s sake. They were thoroughly
believed in Natal at the time; but, upon investigation, they dwindled
down to three separate cases of the execution of men (one in each
case) who happened to be converts, but of whom two were put to death
for causes which had nothing whatsoever to do with their faith (one
of them being indeed a relapsed convert); and the third, an old
man, Maqamsela, whose name certainly deserves to be handed down to
fame in the list of martyrs for religion’s sake, was killed without
the sanction or even knowledge of the king, by the order of his
prime minister Gaozi.[105] That the latter received no punishment,
although the king disapproved of this action, is not a fact of any
importance. It is not always convenient to punish prime ministers and
high commissioners, or powerful indunas.
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:
On September 22nd, 1876, Mr. Osborn, resident magistrate of
Newcastle, writes: “The Zulu king lately granted permission to two
regiments of middle-aged men to marry. These were, however, rejected
by the girls, on the ground that the men were too old; upon which
the king ordered that those girls who refused to marry the soldiers
were to be put to death. Several girls were killed in consequence,
some fled into the colony, others into the Transvaal Republic, and on
October 9th, Government messengers report (1748, p. 198):
“We heard that the king was causing some of the Zulus to be killed on
account of disobeying his orders respecting the marriage of girls,
and we saw large numbers of cattle which had been taken as fines.
Otherwise the land was quiet.”
As far as the most careful investigations could discover, the number
killed was not more than four or five, while the two Zulus already
quoted said that, although they had _heard_ of the matter, they did
not _know_ of a single instance; and as these young men themselves
belonged to one of the regiments, it can hardly be supposed that any
great slaughter could have taken place unknown to them.
At the time, however, report as usual greatly exaggerated the
circumstances, and Sir Henry Bulwer speaks (1748, p. 198) of
“_numbers of girls and young men_,” and “_large numbers of girls and
others connected with them_,” as having been killed.
He sent a message to Cetshwayo on the subject, which in itself was
a temperate and very proper one for an English governor to send, in
the hope of checking such cruelty in future, and was not unnaturally
somewhat surprised at receiving an answer from the usually courteous
and respectful king, which showed plainly enough that he was highly
irritated and resented the interference with his management of
his people. Sir Henry had reminded him of what had passed at his
coronation, and Cetshwayo replies that if Somtseu (Sir T. Shepstone)
had told the white people that he (the king) had promised never to
kill, Somtseu had deceived them. “I have yet to kill,” he says. He
objects to being dictated to about his laws, and says that while
wishing to be friends with the English, he does not intend to govern
his people by laws sent to him by them. He remarks, in a somewhat
threatening way, that in future he shall act on his own account, and
that if the English interfere with him, he will go away and become a
wanderer, but not without first showing what he can do if he chooses.
Finally he points out that he and the Governor of Natal are in like
positions,[109] one being governor of Natal, the other of Zululand.
It is plain that this reply, as reported by the Government
messengers, produced a strong effect on Sir H. Bulwer’s mind, and
considerably affected his feeling towards the king, though, as
already stated, he never brought it, at the time or afterwards,
to the notice of Cetshwayo, and has since exchanged friendly
messages with him. And no doubt the reply was petulant and wanting
in due respect, though a dash of arrogance was added to it by the
interpreter’s use of the expression “we are equal,” instead of “we
are in like positions”—each towards our own people. But that the
formidable words “I have yet to kill,” “I shall now act on my own
account,” meant nothing more than the mere irritation of the moment
is plain from the fact that he never made the slightest attempt to
carry them out, though recent events have taught us what he might
have done had he chosen to “act on his own account.”
The _tone_ of the reply would probably have been very different had
it been brought by Cetshwayo’s own messengers. By an unfortunate
mistake on the part of the Natal Government, one of the messengers
sent was a _Zulu refugee_ of the party of Umbulazi and Umkungo,
between whom and the king there was deadly hostility, which had
lately been intensified by the insulting manner in which Umkungo’s
people had received Cetshwayo’s messengers, sent in a friendly spirit
to inform them of King Umpande’s death. The very presence of this
man, bringing a reproof from the Government of Natal, would naturally
be resented by the Zulu king, who had already declined communications
from the Transvaal sent through refugee subjects of his own (Sir
Henry Bulwer—1748, p. 10); and was now obliged to receive with
courtesy, and listen to words of remonstrance from, one of these very
refugees who had fled to Natal, and, under Zulu law, was liable to be
put to death as a traitor, when he made his appearance in Zululand.
The king’s words, exhibiting the irritation of the moment, whatever
they may have been, would lose nothing of their fierceness and
bitterness by being conveyed through such a medium.
We do not wish to defend such practices as those of forcing girls
into distasteful marriages, or putting them to death for disobedience
in that respect. But we must remember that, after all, the king, in
ordering these executions, was enforcing, not a new law laid down by
himself, but “an old custom” (1748, p. 198). From his point of view
the exercise of such severity was as necessary to maintaining his
authority as the decimation of a regiment for mutiny might appear to
a commander, or the slaughter of hundreds of Langalibalele’s people,
hiding in caves or running away, which we have already described,
appeared to Sir B. Pine and Sir T. Shepstone in 1873-74.
The king himself gave an illustration of his difficulties in a
message sent to Sir H. Bulwer early in 1878 (2079, p. 96). He
reported to His Excellency that two of his regiments had had a
fight, and many of his men had been killed, at which he was much
annoyed. He reports this to show His Excellency that, although he
warned them that he would severely punish any regiment that caused
any disturbance at the Umkosi, he cannot rule them without sometimes
killing them, especially as they know they can run to Natal.
We have now considered in turn every accusation brought against the
Zulu king up to the end of 1878, when Sir Bartle Frere delivered
his ultimatum, which he had said beforehand would put an end to our
peaceful relations with our neighbours. We venture to assert that,
with the exception of the last, every one of these accusations is
distinctly refuted on evidence gathered from official sources. Of
that last, we would observe, that, although it cannot be entirely
denied, the fault has been greatly exaggerated; while that part
of it which referred to the sole instance of a hasty reply to the
Natal Government, has been condoned by two years’ friendly relations
since the offence, before it was raked up by Sir Bartle Frere as an
additional pretext for the war. And, at all events, had Cetshwayo’s
severity to his people been a hundred times greater than it ever was,
he could not in a lifetime have produced the misery which this one
year’s campaign has wrought.
Yet these accusations were the sole pretexts for the war, except
that fear of the proximity of a nation strong enough and warlike
enough to injure us, _if it wished to do so_, which Sir Bartle Frere
declared made it impossible for peaceful subjects of Her Majesty
to feel security for life or property within fifty miles of the
border, and made the existence of a peaceful English community in
the neighbourhood impossible.[110] He speaks in the same despatch
(2269, pp. 1, 2) of the king as “an irresponsible, bloodthirsty, and
treacherous despot,” which terms, and others like them, do duty again
and again for solid facts, but of the justice of which he gives no
proof whatever. We cannot do better than give, in conclusion, and
as a comment upon the above fear, a quotation from Lord Blachford’s
speech in the House of Lords, March 26th, 1879, which runs:
“Some people assumed that the growth of the Zulu power in the
neighbourhood of a British colony constituted such a danger that,
in a common phrase, it had to be got rid of, and that, when a thing
had to be done, it was idle and inconvenient to examine too closely
into the pretexts which were set up. And this was summed up in
a phrase which is used more than once by the High Commissioner,
and had obtained currency in what he might call the light
literature of politics. We might be told to obey our ‘instincts of
self-preservation.’ No doubt the instinct of self-preservation was
one of the most necessary of our instincts. But it was one of those
which we had in common with the lowest brute—one of those which we
are most frequently called on to keep in order. It was in obedience
to the ‘instinct of self-preservation’ that a coward ran away in
battle, that a burglar murdered a policeman, or, what was more to our
present purpose, that a nervous woman jumped out of a carriage lest
she should be upset; or that one man in a fright fired at another
who, he thought, meant to do him an injury, though he had not yet
shown any sign of an intention of doing so. The soldiers who went
down in the _Birkenhead_—what should we have thought of them if,
instead of standing in their ranks to be drowned, they had pushed the
women and children into the hold and saved themselves? A reasonable
determination to do that which our safety requires, so far as it
is consistent with our duty to others, is the duty and interest of
every man. To evade an appeal to the claims of reason and justice,
by a clamorous allegation of our animal instinct, is to abdicate our
privileges as men, and to revert to brutality.”