SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— ALLEGED CRUELTY OF THE BRITISH TROOPS.—QUESTION.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sas1

sas1,

Not a very popular, or pleasant, subject to discuss. No one wants to believe that their heroes are capable of being “cruel” to the enemy. Unfortunately, war is just that. It is cruel. It is now, and during the late 19th century, considered proper to kill the enemy in battle. However, when does the battle actually end? Soldiers in combat are operating on adrenelin, and that cannot be turned on and off with a switch. Soldiers will continue to fight-on when the enemy’s resistance has been broken. This is especially true when that enemy is perceived as having exhibited cruelty to your side. The Battles of Kambula and Gingindlovu both were fought not that long after Isandlwana, and British soldiers wanted revenge for the ‘massacre’ of their comrades.

There are always anti-war groups who are willing to point out reports of mistreatment of the enemy to promote their cause. The Aborigines Protection Society it seems is such a group. Alexander Willmot in his book “The History of Our Times in South Africa” stated that “among the most unfair means of prejudicing the minds of the British public were the ignorant and biased attacks of the Aborigines Protection Society, composed of well-meaning men, who seem to start with the preconceived idea that colonist, British Generals, and British governors are always unjust and cruel to savages.” Wilmot then quotes Mr. Matineau (“Life of Sir B. Frere”) “The methods employed by the Aborigines Protection Society bore some resemblance to those of medieval Venice. The Blue Books of the time are full of letters from the society to the Secretary of State, detailing stories of alleged oppression or cruelty, and demanding an inquiry; or sometimes a question was asked to the same effect in Parliament. It would be many months before the reply to the inquiry could come back from the Cape, and in the meantime the story was circulated, and the refutation came too late to be listened to.”
The Canadian Monthly and National Review in an article states “In an English illustrated journal of the highest class there is a picture, in compartments, of incidents in the Zulu war. In one compartment a tall Zulu in chains is being ignominiously led captive by a diminutive British drummer-boy. This perhaps is more brag. Not so the representation in another compartment of ‘Jack’s captive,’ a Zulu prisoner with a halter, the end of which is held by a jolly tar, around his neck, crouching in an agony of fear beneath a gallows on which he is evidently going to be hanged, while a bystander, apparently an officer with a pipe in his mouth and a jaunty air, stares at the doomed wretch with a look of mockery. Still less doubt can there be about the animus of a third sketch entitled ‘Something to Hold By.’ In which two more jolly tars are holding down by the feet and ears a Zulu whom they have caught hiding in the reeds, while an officer in the attitude of a man searching for game is coming up with a drawn sword.”

The last sketch mentioned is the same one at the top of page 130 in Ian Castle’s and Ian Knight’s “Fearful Hard Times, The Siege and Relief of Eshowe, 1879”. Below the sketch is the caption ‘Much of the fighting around the fort consisted of small skirmishes between British and Zulu patrols – here a British outpost overcomes a solitary Zulu scout.’ It should be point our here that these are sketches drawn by war correspondents trying to sell their story, and newspapers; - they are not photographs. There were no correspondents at Fort Eshowe during the siege. The sketches were not drawn from what they had witnessed, but from stories which they had been told.

There are several reports of Zulu prisoners be taken well care of, and receiving proper medical treatment for wounds received in battle. I have seen no record of British troops mistreating non-combatants.

(I did manage to include the Royal Naval Brigade into this posting.)

Petty Officer Tom

hi all, the british may have been cruel, who can blame them after isandlwana, there are several accounts of zulu prisoners been fed and released, and also some lucky ones being cared for in hospitals. found the following in
BRAVE MENS BLOOD by IAN KNIGHT, "presumably colonials, called out in zulu, begging to be spared. the zulus replied, " how can we give you mercy when you have come to us, and want to take away our country and eat us up?.
so they were killed. that paragraph was from isandlwana. cheers 90th.

Here is a good example.

Extract from Reminiscences of a Transport Conductor in the Zulu War

A Zulu prisoner with a shattered leg was brought in. The doctor decided that his leg should be amputated or he would die. They gave him an anaesthetic and took the leg off, and in due time he regained consciousness. The two prisoners watched all this with great astonishment, and the wounded man too was very surprised when he found that his leg was gone.

S.D

This war was a war of no quarter between the two antagonists. Disregarding the political recriminations between the two cultures what can be said without a doubt is that both forces fought bravely and courageously for their ideals and they fought to the death. The war was brutal to its combatants. No soldier wanted to get assegaied and no Zulu wanted a Martini-Henry bullet going through him. Frankly, in the last resort perhaps the British did those wounded Zulus a favour because they probably suffered greatly when hit? The bullets carried tremendous wallop and gave grievous injury.

sas1

Most notably, British officers and men found it hard to cope with the mutilation of bodies. The desecration of the dead was difficult to accept. John Maxwell and Hamilton Parr both go in to detail with accuracy to the process. To the average Victorian Soldier, it was horrific and alien.
We are lucky in the fact that it was a common Victorian pastime to keep records and write memoirs consequently we are left with an abundance of resources. Perhaps the most valuable being the newspaper correspondents of that day. The Zulu nation was held accountable for the bloodied ground within the shadow of Isandlwana, Journalism took the savagery to a personal level which details far more horrific that they actually were.
Norris a war correspondent in Zululand 1879 painted the scene for the readers in his book (In Zululand with the British throughout the war)

“But oh! How dreadful were those weary hours that followed! While we all had to watch and wait, though the darkness, with what patience we could muster, for the dawn of day, with the knowledge we were standing and lying amongst and surrounded by the corpses of our late comrades.”

Another instance by an Officer of the N.N.C even his account cannot hide the feelings felt at the horrors of Isandlwana. He Write.

“I tripped and fell down the mountain some ten of twelve paces. Naturally I had my hands in front in the position I can remember of one about to take alive, and what a dive it was, for I found myself with my hands in the inside of what turned out to be the body of a 24th man”

Related incidents were experienced by all those that returned to Isandlwana. And many of those that saw the Battlefield of Isandlwana would never forgive the Zulu. The British perception of the Zulu had been blemish, by their loss of pride and comrades.
The want of revenge is found more profound in letters from regular British officers who had know most of men who fell at Isandlwana.

Again Norris a war correspondent sums this up.

“Many a vow of vengeance was breathed in the stillness of the night; and many and deep were the sobs that came from the breasts of men who perhaps, had never sobbed before, at discovery even by that dim light, of the bodies of dear friend, brutally massacred.

During the AZW the N.N.C was created. The ranks were made-up of mainly Zulus exiled from Zululand and pressed into service. Capt: Molyneux raised this point when describing the end of the Battle of Gingindlovu when the NNC massacred wounded Zulus;

“We were all hard at work when the most appalling yells were suddenly heard. It turned out, however, that one of our native battalions had come across a crowd of wounded Zulus in a patch of bush, and with the chivalry peculiar to the nature of the semi-civilised were killing them in cold blood.

Source: Hansard


COLONEL STANLEY

was not aware that any complaint had been made in the Army with reference to the condition of dental surgery; but he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he could not remember to have seen in any official document that mention was made of the Zulu wounded being treated in hospital. It was very well known that, in almost all circumstances, savage nations would contrive to carry off their wounded, and he fancied, therefore, it was owing to that circumstance that very few wounded had been under treatment in hospital. But he did remember having seen in another document that some sick Zulu prisoners had been brought to Fort Tenedos, and there treated precisely as were our own men. Whatever might be the faults of the British soldier, cruelty to prisoners could not be reckoned amongst them; and he felt sure that the wounded Zulus would receive every necessary attention which it was possible to afford them. It was, perhaps, another question whether they could be treated in hospital, because the duty of the surgeon would be to consider first the men of the British. Service, after which the Zulus would, no doubt, be treated with all possible kindness and attention. With regard to the increased charge for pay, he had been very anxious to give effect, as far as possible, to some improvements suggested in the Army and Navy Services; and, therefore, with the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had taken a round sum for this purpose. The increase was partly accounted for in that way, and partly by having to meet the additional pay to which officers were entitled for active service under the 1959 Royal Warrant. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Meath, it was, of course, very useful to have the criticism of the Controller and Auditor General, which he (Colonel Stanley) had never at any time opposed; and he thought that his advice, as in most other cases, would probably be followed in the present instance. Indeed, his directions were cordially accepted wherever matters of principle were involved.


SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the present Vote was one to which no exception could reasonably be taken, as the Medical Departments both in the Army and Navy were known to do their work fairly well. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had found fault with the present Estimate because it appeared that more medicine was not given in the Army; but it appeared to him (Sir Andrew Lusk) that, perhaps, the less medicine given the better. The explanation of the Vote which had been given by the Secretary of State for War was, in his opinion, perfectly satisfactory.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the treatment of Zulu prisoners was imperfect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had truly said that there was no official account of their having been attended to at all, which, although he had pointed out that some sick Zulus had been treated at Fort Tenedos, appeared very like a corroboration of the suspicion that all the Zulu wounded were killed in cold blood, by authority of the officers in command. Of course, he did not say that such was the ease; but it looked suspicious. He joined issue with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the statement that British officers had never been charged with cruelty to their enemies. He thought it was not very long ago that it appeared in one of the morning papers—and he, of course, referred to the circumstance as being subject to correction by the soldiers and officers at the place whence this information came—that a number of Afghan prisoners had been shot in cold blood.



MR. BIGGAR

said, he was simply replying to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, that no charge of cruelty had ever been made against British officers and soldiers. To that statement he (Mr. Biggar) answered by producing a case in point, where such a charge had been made, and up to the present time had never been contradicted. He was about to add that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should give the subject a little further consideration, and at once send out instructions to South Africa that the Zulu wounded should have as fair treatment as was customary amongst civilized nations in dealing with their enemies. Had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would do so, his promise would have been sufficient; but he had confined his observations to saying that there was no evidence that the Zulus had been otherwise treated. He (Mr. Biggar) thought that the evidence was strong that they had not been treated as prisoners of war; and unless some promise was given that instructions for their treatment in this respect should be sent out, it would go forth to the world that England was not dealing with the Zulus in a civilized manner.

How was these so called acts of cruelty being reported bsck to England. Was it by officers that had witnessed the acts or was it speculation by the newspaper men out there during the AZW.
I can't belive that after the Battle of Isandlwana that any man could feel the need to report such events.

Even in the Victorian era encounters with the enemy had to be investigated especially the isolated incident where witnesses were presents. These reports were sent back to England (Lets Say to keep the record straight)

Here is some questions concerning a wounded Zulu being shot. One of them be the son of Sihayo.

22 May 1879

MR. O'DONNELL

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of the slaughter of a wounded Zulu Chief in the Durban Correspondence of the "Daily Telegraph" of Monday the 19th instant:— "The following from Colonel Bellairs, D.A.G., has just reached me: Captain Prior, 80th Foot (on April the 5th) proceeded with a mounted patrol, consisting of Lieutenant Ussher and four of his regiment, and Mr. Freter, junior, from Luneberg, in the direction of the Upper Pongola Drift. Having come up with twenty friendly natives, and obtaining information that the Zulus were sweeping horses and cattle from the valley, he went in pursuit, and came within 800 yards of a few mounted men, who were hurrying on horses and cattle, which they abandoned and fled. After capturing the horses (eighteen), and leaving them in charge of Lieutenant Ussher, Mr. Freter, and two men, he went on with Private Bowen, their horses being freshest, following two Zulus who had taken the direction of Dombie. They came eventually within 400 yards, and exchanged shots with them; one of the Zulus was wounded by a bullet, and, the friendly natives coming up, was assegaied. He was recognised as a younger son of Sihayo; the other, who got away, being ascertained to have been Umbelini;" whether he has had his attention directed to the correspondence of the "Standard" of the same date, in which cases of refusal to give quarter and of the slaughter of wounded Zulus after the battle of Gingilhovo are mentioned; and, whether he proposes to take any steps in consequence of these statements?



SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

The account of the "slaughter of a wounded Zulu Chief" which the hon. Member has quoted from The Daily Telegraph is, I see, contradicted by a later account which appeared in the Press yesterday, from which it seems that of the two Zulus named one was killed by a bullet at 400 yards, and the other wounded, and that the wounded man escaped. I cannot say whether either story is accurate; but the later version certainly does not bear out the interpretation placed by the hon. Member on the passage which he has quoted. As to the eases mentioned in the correspondence in The Standard, they appear to be unsupported statements of a general character, resting on hearsay evidence, which I should not think it necessary to notice. Circumstances may unavoidably occur in the heat of action which all would regret; but if any English officer, or soldier, had intentionally refused quarter to an enemy who had submitted—which I do not believe—I am satisfied that the military authorities might safely be trusted to deal with the case.

S.D

Sir Redvers Henry Buller VC
was criticised in some quarters in England for his men's killing of wounded and surrendered Zulus during the pursuit. In June 1879, he again commanded mounted troops at the battle of Ulundi
Battle of Ulundi.

The Battle of Ulundi took place at the Zulu capital of Ulundi on 4 July 1879 and was the last major battle of the Anglo-Zulu War. The British army finally broke the military power of the Zulu by defeating the main Zulu army and immediately afterwards capturing and razing the capital of Zululand, the royal kraal of Ulundi....
, a decisive British victory which effectively ended the war.

Cape Mounted Yeomanry under Colonel Brabant, with a detachment of these men, threw explosive dynamite and fired cannon into a cave occupied by Basutos and their women and children?

extract from a letter of a soldier in the 60th Rifles, published in the "Daily News" of Tuesday last, in which it is stated, with reference to the action against the Zulus of April 2nd, on the march to relieve Ekowe— " After the firing was all done, we sent our blacks in amongst them, and they killed all the wounded; and some of them asked our blacks 724 for a drop of water; yes, and they gave them water too—they put their assegais through them and struck them to the ground;"

War is War. And when atrocities are committed by one side. The other will retaliate.

Yes but the English being the superior and sophisticated species,should have worked towards peace not retaliation. It just shows that a far less superior nation (So we say) wanted peace based on a past relationship, before the British engineered the war. It just goes to show, not only did the Zulus have better Generals but they had a superior knowledge of humanity. And the need for peace to stop the killing.

I don’t think is was just Chelmsford and Frere that what retaliation. I would imagine most ,if not all of the British troops what some payback. I guess most of us know what is like to lose someone close be it be family of friend. The that mutilation continued even after death made matters worse. I read somewhere that the British troops where furious by the amount of stab wounds some soldiers had. But it was all to do with washing the spears.

Came across this extract. Goes in to a bit more detail. Part one


MR. O'DONNELL

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been directed to the South African Correspondence of the "Daily Chronicle" of the 3rd instant, in which it is stated that after the Battle of Kambula the defeated Zulus, exhausted with fatigue, fell in hundreds upon the ground, begging for mercy from their pursuers "but were shot, stabbed, or sabred where they lay," and that even though some of them had smeared themselves with blood in order to appear to be wounded and appealed for quarter, they were mercilessly put to death; whether he has seen an extract from the letter of a soldier engaged in the same fight at Kambula, published in the "Tiverton Gazette" of May the 27th, and copied in the "Echo" of the 3rd instant, in which it is avowed that— "On March the 30th, the day after the battle, about eight miles from camp, we found about five hundred wounded, most of them mortally, and begging us for mercy's sake not to kill them; but they got no chance after what they had done to our comrades at Isandula;" and, whether operations in South Africa are being conducted by the British troops according to the usages of civilisation?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

Sir, the hon. Member evidently seems to expect that I should make myself acquainted with everything that appears in the newspapers on this subject. I make no complaint of that view; but I think we may take it for granted that he complies with that rule himself. Therefore, he must have seen in Wednesday's Times a letter from the War Office, in which it was stated, on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, that the General Officer commanding Her Majesty's Forces in Natal has been called on to inquire into those allegations, and report whether there is any truth in them. If the hon. Member saw that letter, I cannot tell what object he has in asking this Question. I should not have thought that any Member of this House would have been willing, without necessity, to give pain to men who are serving Her Majesty on the other side of the world by giving to unsupported statements of this kind the stamp of importance, if not of credibility, that they derive from being made the subject of a Question in Parliament; much less that anyone would have based upon such a foundation as this an insinuation that his own countrymen do not conduct war according to the usages of civilization.

Part 2.

MR. O'DONNELL

Mr. Speaker, in order to put myself quite in Order in the remarks I have to make, I shall conclude with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman asks why—assuming that I had seen the reply of the War Office to some representations made to them by the Aborigines Protection Society—I put the Question to him? Although the interrogatories of the right hon. Baronet were not put in the most courteous form, or with the most careful regard for the independent rights of Members of this House, I will beg to answer them; and I hope he will consider himself perfectly satisfied by the time I have sat down. The reply to the Aborigines Protection Society seemed to me to be excessively inadequate—considering the circumstances of the case, considering the wrong committed, and the undoubted perpetration of atrocities in South Africa. I, therefore, asked this Question; and I hoped to receive an answer from the Colonial Secretary very different from the evasive and unsatisfactory answers he is in the habit of giving. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not make this a charge against the right hon. Baronet. I am disposed only to regard him in those matters relating to his Office as the channel of information in this House; but I regret to say that he is habitually the channel of most adulterated and misleading information. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members have heard the manner in which I have been treated just now by the right hon. Gentleman. If a Member gets up and asks the right hon. Baronet a Question—for instance, 1710 whether Native women and children in South Africa are captured and indentured out into practical slavery—we receive the answer that no women or children in South Africa are treated in this way, or at all approaching it, except those who are deserted. I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform the House, in regard to the word "deserted," whether it is not an evasion perpetrated on the innocence of the right hon. Baronet, most unworthy of the traditions of the Public Service of the country? The alleged desertion—and I, and other Members on this side of the House, can prove it—is the desertion occasioned by driving off the male members of the tribe by bullet and bayonet. When the male members of the tribe are captured they are condemned to hard labour and penal servitude, and the Native women and children are then said to be deserted. It is for this House to judge whether that is a correct representation of the state of affairs. Not only have these poor women and children not been deserted by their natural supporters, but they have been deprived of them by the violence of Her Majesty's Administrator in South Africa. Again, Sir, if an hon. Member asks the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is true that prisoners of war, the tribesmen of Native Chiefs in South Africa, have, contrary to all the usages of civilization, been condemned to hard labour and penal servitude, the right hon. Baronet stands up in his place, and again—acting, no doubt, upon information which he has received—assures this House that no prisoners of war have been treated in any such manner. Sir, again, I am sorry to say, an evasion has been practised of the most culpable kind. These unfortunate tribesmen throughout South Africa are not, technically considered, prisoners of war; they have been tried for treason-felony, and under treason statutes, and are considered rebels and insurgents. I leave it to this House to say whether these tribesmen—ignorant, devoted to their Chiefs—who have followed those Chiefs into war against Her Majesty's Government, are not properly prisoners of war; and whether it is not unworthy even to speak of them as rebels punishable according to the ordinary law of the land? I have this year, and in previous years, asked Question upon Question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and on every occasion, though I have never previously complained, I have had a right to complain of the uncourteous manner in which he replied. I repudiate with scorn and contempt any insinuation that I am not as careful of the honour of that Army—of which my countrymen form so distinguished a part—as any Member, I care not what his nationality may be, in this Empire. But I have duties to discharge to my conscience, to my Colleagues, to my constituents. Let the right hon. Baronet venture to disprove a single allegation that is made; but let him not presume to reply with unworthy taunts to a Member of this House who is acting in the discharge of his duty. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

Part 3.

MR. BIGGAR

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I must again, Sir, enter my protest against this repetition of a practice which I ventured yesterday, or the day before, to say must, if persisted in, prove utterly destructive to the possibility of conducting Business regularly; and with a view to the convenience of the House, I think it unnecessary to take any special notice of the extraordinary language which the hon. Gentleman has chosen to indulge in. It is language approaching—though I do not say that it goes beyond an approach—to a very serious breach of the usual language of Parliament. I am quite sure that I speak the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as well as my own and those of my Colleagues, in saying that we think very little of language such as that employed by the hon. Gentleman. I think that when the hon. Member talks of evasion, he is using language which my right hon. Friend may very well think it beneath him to take any notice of. I rise mainly for the purpose of again entering my protest against the introduction and the adoption by the House of a system of moving the adjournment of the House, in order to introduce matters for discussion that are not at all relevant to the Business before the House.



MR. SULLIVAN

This heat is very much to be regretted; and I am astonished at the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently forgetting who introduced it. Although loyalty to a Colleague is praiseworthy, there is a higher duty due from him. He is the Leader of this House, and ought to be the protector of the privileges of an independent Member; and if he found a Colleague, under momentary irritation, converting a reply to a Question into a harangue and an impeachment of a Member, then I say that the Leader of the House should have risen above the feelings of the Minister towards his Colleague. I must say I heard with astonishment—I will not say with astonishment, but with great pain—the tone and character of the reply of the Colonial Secretary. I correct myself in saying with astonishment, because, after all, we are all human. Still, official life does impose some restriction upon one's feelings; and, whatever the right hon. Baronet's irritation might have been, he was bound to consider that he was Her Majesty's public official, and that he filled a highly responsible position in this House, where gravity ought to characterize his language. Instead of replying in an official tone to a fair and legitimate Question, he introduced, not only matter of argument, but matter of invective; and what was his invective? It was an accusation that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had abused his position in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] Is there one man amongst those who are ready to say "Hear, hoar!" who will have the courage to put his name to a Motion on the Paper that the hon. Member has abused his position? Let us watch the Notice Paper to see. If he has abused it, he is amenable to the Rules of the House. I regret this waste of time. Mark how, in the middle of June, when we ought to be proceeding with our Business, a Minister of the Crown, backed up by a loudly-cheering majority, wastes three-quarters of an hour of our time by getting up to lead us into a heated debate, instead of giving a courteous and proper answer to a fair Question. I will not go into other instances of this kind; but I charge upon Members of the Government this waste of public time. Let us hope that we shall have no more of these impeachments. I, for one, also complain of the language of the Colonial Secretary. He talked about our countrymen, and made imputations upon our countrymen in South Africa. He forgets, being a Colonial Secretary, that the paper which published the account was English. It was not an Irish newspaper, but The Tiverton Gazette, and the extract was copied into the London Echo, and the soldier who wrote that letter was an English soldier, you may be sure. ["No, no!"] Oh! there are a few English soldiers out in South Africa; although, when you wanted a man to lead them, you went to Ireland and found Sir Garnet Wolseley. This English soldier wrote as follows:— "We found the day after the battle 500 wounded, most of them mortally, and begging us for mercy's sake not to kill them." That is not a statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan; it is not a statement of an Irish witness. It is a statement published by an English newspaper— "Begging us for mercy's sake not to kill thorn; but they got no chance after what they had done to our comrades at Isandlana." ["Divide, divide!"] Not so, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be heard. If anyone in this House sees a statement so serious as that, affecting the honour of your Army—[An hon. MEMBER: Prove it.] An hon. Member asks me to prove it. Take the statement out of an irresponsible public paper, bring it to the House, and then let the Minister give it a contradiction. If it is a slander—as I hope it may prove to be for the sake of our common humanity—let it be so branded; but the man who feels it his duty to call attention to it must not be received as my hon. Friend has been received; he must not be taunted and hold up to scorn, and the Minister who does so cheered by Gentlemen sitting behind him. I do not wish to complain too much; but I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that we, too, have our feelings who sit on this side of the House: and we cannot see without protest an hon. Friend and Member treated—as we believe the hon. Member for Dungarvan has been treated—in such an unhandsome manner. I repeat my regret that this heated debate should have been provoked from the Treasury Bench, and I hope we shall be allowed to proceed with our Business.



MR. NEWDEGATE

remarked, that it was the deliberate opinion of the Select Committee on Public Business, over which the late Sir James Graham presided in 1861, that the present fashion of putting Questions might be made the vehicle for conveying imputations, the necessary reply to which would entail the frequent interruption of the Business of the House. It was in order to avoid such exhibitions as the House had now been made the scene of, that the arrangement was come to that on going into Supply on Friday any subject might be raised which might be deemed worth the attention of the House. No abler Committee had ever been appointed than the Committee which framed that recommendation in order to avoid such scenes as had now occurred. For what had happened? A Member of the House had chosen, on the authority of a newspaper—or, it might be, two newspapers—to frame a Question in such terms as conveyed the grossest imputation upon our Army. When, in answer to that Question, the hon. Member was informed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that if he had only consulted a newspaper, much more likely to attract public attention than those he had quoted, he might have known that inquiries were being instituted, and that it was inpossible at present that his inquiries could be satisfactorily answered, the hon. Member treated that reply as an imputation—and he (Mr. Newdegate) thought the imputation well deserved; and then the hon. Member interrupted the Business of the House in order to make a vindication of his action, in which he had totally failed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I hope that we shall be allowed very speedily to proceed to Business. I do not quite accept the rules for the conduct of our Business of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Newdegate). I think you, Sir, must be the judge whether a Question is in accordance with Order or not, and I must leave it to you to make that decision. Now, with regard to this Question, if it had stopped before the very last clause, I think the Government and the Colonial Secretary ought to have been glad that it was asked. These are two statements which are very distressing to anyone to read. The Government have done their duty in writing to be informed whether these and similar statements are true, thereby showing I primâ facie their disapproval; but I think it would have been rather a kindness to the Government, and rather a credit to the country, that the Colonial Secretary, or some other Member of the Government, should have been enabled by a Question to state officially that such a step had been taken. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman went too far in his closing sentence. He seems by that to prejudge the case, which we all trust may turn out to be quite different to what he represented it. But when we come to the rebuke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Gentleman for moving the adjournment of the House, I share the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these Motions for adjournment are exceedingly inconvenient; but I confess that in this particular case the Colonial Secretary ought almost to have anticipated the Motion. The way in which he answered the Question may or may not have been a just one, but he gave a strong rebuke to the hon. Member for the mode in which he asked it; and I think it is not unnatural to expect, that if a Member of the Government strongly rebukes in his reply to a Question a Member of this House for the form in which he has asked it, it is not unreasonable to expect that that Gentleman should get up and reply. I do hope that now we shall be allowed to proceed to Business

With regards the alleged cruelty of the British troops.
This question relates to Rorke’s Drift, Shooting and Bayoneting of wounded Zulus.
What were the British supposed to do with them other than put them out of their misery? The British did not have the transportation to take them anywhere, Surgeon Reynolds was to busy looking after the British wounded.

I have thought about this and can see they never had a choice, or would it have been better to leave the Zulu to die a slow excruciating death.

Lets be honest. If there had been any wounded British at Isandlwana. Do you think the Zulu would have taken care of them? The assegai is what they would have got.

Not sure on this is true but, In the film Zulu Dawn, when the Zulus are in the camp arae, they can be seen killing wounded British soldiers that are lying on stretchers. Like I say don't know if this is factual.

Old H.
It’s the politicians, they what the army to do the job, then criticize the way they do it. They like to be squeaky clean what ever the outcome.

“A body of troops infantry, irregular cavalry, and undisciplined natives upon one occasion during this expedition were engaged for some hours in trying to dislodge a solitary native from a cave in which he had taken refuge. The force had discovered the hiding place by the assistance of a little boy, whom they captured and induced to betray his friends.

The " rebel " (in this case there was but one) refused to surrender, and for a long while defended himself gallantly against the attacks of the whole force. Shots were fired through the apertures of the cave, rockets (a new and horrible experience to the poor creature) were discharged upon him. At last, after holding out for some hours, the man gave up the struggle, and coming out from his insufficient shelter, begged for mercy at the hands of his numerous foe. He had a good many wounds upon him, but none sufficiently severe to prevent his walking out amongst his captors, and asking them to spare his life. After a short consultation amongst the officers, a decision was arrived at as to the proper treatment of this man, who had proved himself a brave soldier and was now a helpless captive.

By order of the officer commanding, a trooper named Hoodie put his pistol to the prisoner's head and blew out his brains. A court-martial sat upon this officer in the course of the following year, and he was acquitted of all blame. The defence was that the man was so seriously injured that it was an act of humanity to put an end to him, and that the officer dared not trust him in the hands of the natives belonging to the English force, who were exasperated by the long defence he had made. But the prisoner was not mortally . nor even dangerously wounded. He was able to walk and to speak, and had no wound upon him which need necessarily have caused his death. And as to the savage temper of the native force, there was no reason
why the prisoner should be left in their charge at all, as there was a considerable white force present at the time."

Source: "History of the Zulu war and its origin;"

Hi Old H.
I thing your find this was pre-Zulu War 1879. But I see your point. Persecution comes to mind. Not sure if you have read the other accounts in the same book. There’s an interesting piece on Durnford.

The various tribes, got a rough deal before, during and after the Zulu War. But it does seem that Durnford had a soft spot, he even erected a Hosptal tent to take care of their wounded and sick.

With Refrence to the killing of wounded Zulu's at Rorkes Drift, was this done by the defenders themselves. I have been trying very hard to find out what took place and under what conditions, i.e. was an order issued to dispatch the wounded. I have read Hook's account, but he appears to have re-acted in retaliation after his leg was grabbed, but this only accounts for one Zulu. Any replies welcome…

Hi
I thought it was members of the NNC who killed the wounded Zulus at Rorkes Drift, dont know where i read this

Happy to be corrected

thanks joe

OH
There are quite a few references to 'euthanasia' by the british troops. Theres one in particular that talks of bodies still moving when thrown into the burial pit.
Also others quotes from Ulundi and elsewhere.
I will look it up and let you know.

Regards

Eye-Witness Account.

A LOST LEGIONARY IN SOUTH AFRICA: Colonel HAMILTON-BROWNE

During the afternoon it was discovered that a large number of wounded and worn-out Zulus had taken refuge or hidden in the mealie fields near the laager. My two companies of Zulus with some of my non-coms, and a few of the 24th quickly drew these fields and killed them with bayonet, butt and assagai.

It was beastly but there was nothing else to do. War is war and savage war is the worst of the lot. Moreover our men were worked up to a pitch of fury by the sights they had seen in the morning and the mutilated bodies of the poor fellows lying in front of the burned hospital.

Colonel HAMILTON-BROWNE.

Admin. Thanks for the ref: to the A LOST LEGIONARY IN SOUTH AFRICA: Colonel HAMILTON-BROWNE.

Came upon this was reading. Do we know to which officers he refers?

I "saw the bodies of two of my officers lying dead with heaps of empty cartridge shells by their sides. Both had been splendid shots and I bet they had done plenty of execution before"

hi Dave .
I will guess it's Melvill and Coghill .
cheers 90th.

In regard to the killing of wounded zulus , this happened virtually everywhere and there are many sources published in books .
Most of the time it seems it was carried out by the NNC , Who seemed to relish this task . Especially after the attack at Kambula
the NNC and Mtd Troops did much killing during the routing of the zulu's as revenge for those killed the day before at Hlobane.
As Hamiton - Browne said it was total war and its the worst of the lot , and we also know the zulu wasnt prone to take prisoners .
cheers 90th.

Quote :

I will guess it's Melvill and Coghill .

90th this is with reference to his walk about on the Battlefield at Isandlwana.

"saw the bodies of two of my officers lying dead with heaps of empty cartridge shells by their sides. Both had been splendid shots and I bet they had done plenty of execution before"

Colonel Hamilton-Browne book "A LOST LEGIONARY IN SOUTH AFRICA" Some of this book is based on fact, but a lot it’s based on hearsay. This book was written some 30 years after the event, so again a lot of Victorian Military fantasy as crept in.

And someone who claims to have eaten a child to survive wrote this book.

But he did confirm seeing Pulleine’s body in the camp.

Life magazine : Sudan 1898

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

good evening

Except Lieutenant Horace Smith-Dorien that written in his memoirs, speaks of Zulu warriors hanged by the brave soldiers of the 3rd column arriving at R D with Chelmsford the 23 January 1879 ?

Cheers

Pascal

Yes thats true

Charlie Harford and Browne mention this


Cheers

Good evening Young Man

Well how many victims?

Who gave the order ? And why ?

These are not defenders of RD who do this, right ?

But those in the third column arriving with Chelmsford, right ?

And for the wounded Zulu buried alive ?

Well how many victims ?

Who gave the order? And why ?

These are not defenders of RD who do this, right ?

But those in the third column arriving with Chelmsford, right ?

I saw on TV, David Saul talk about it, other historians avoid the subject, I think ...

Cheers

Pascal

There was nothing that could be done for the wounded Zulu's, if they are going to kill every one on the enemy side and then mutilate there bodies, then they shoudn't be surprised if the other side are just as brutal back.

A Zulu siad

We gave no quater, and asked for none for ourselvs

The men of No.3 Column very, Tired, Angrey, Shocked and Horrifed at the Zulus, it is only natural that they reacted the way they did.

Any Zulu who was thought to be a spy was hung or shot. As is the way with spys in most wars.

Cheers

DB14 said, " it is only natural that they reacted the way they did.

Any Zulu who was thought to be a spy was hung or shot. As is the way with spys in most wars."



Natural reaction? Yes. Right? No
Even Kafka's man was given a trial.

I agree that it was wrong

I was just giving reasons why


Cheers
DB14

Hi all .
I think Colour Sgt Bourne mentions an account of this , I shall see if I can find it . Found it.... This from '' Rorkes Drift by those who were there '' by Stevenson & Jones page 106 '' One zulu who was alive had been left for dead , later
in the day LT. BROMHEAD sent for me and said , very urgently . '' Where's that man who was here just now with a prisoner ? Find that man and bring him here '' . '' I went round asking who's the man who's got a prisoner '' ? . They said , '' Ashton , of course '' . Ashton was a lusty Irishman . I found Ashton . '' What have you done with your prisoner ''? , I said . He pointed to a tree from which the zulu's body was hanging . '' I took him into Lt Bromhead '' , said the Irishman . '' And he told me to get the hell out of here with him , and I did '' .
cheers 90th.

Pascal your topic " Horace Smith-Dorrien" has been merged with "SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— ALLEGED CRUELTY OF THE BRITISH TROOPS" As is contains some of the information mentioned. And is in context with your topic.

Like I have said use the search box.

Anyone. Heard of this. Certainly puts the body count up. 851

"Lieutenant Colonel John North Crealock's private journal, discovered in the royal archives at Windsor, reported that "351 dead Zulus were found and 500 wounded". He did not elaborate on the fate of the wounded and the book's authors conclude they were probably all killed, since there was no record of taking prisoners or tending wounded."

This from Hamilton-Brown.

formed the reserve which encouraged the fighting
line and killed any combatant who turned tail.

The Zulus had no field ambulances, so after
a fight the wounded were examined by their
indunas and if found to be unable to march or to
be otherwise seriously hurt were put to death,
usually by drowning, provided a river was close at
hand, otherwise he was put out of his misery by his
nearest relation. After the fight at Rourke’s Drift
we found on the banks of the Buffalo nearly one
hundred blood-stained shields on which their
wounded owners had been carried down to the
river so as to be drowned. The Zulus were very
superstitious, being great believers in omens,
witchcraft, divinations and bone-throwing and also
believed that the moon exercised great power for
good and evil and that at certain phases of the
luminary it was lucky or most unlucky to undertake
any important act especially that of war.

QUESTIONS.

HC Deb 26 June 1879 vol 247
MR. O'DONNELL
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the letter of the special correspondent of the " Daily News," published in the issue of that paper on the 20th instant, in which the destruction of four native villages by Colonel Lowe's command is described; whether, in particular, he has marked the following statement:— Lord Chelmsford had given orders that no kraals should he burned until the general advance, being anxious to utilise the woodwork of the huts as fuel; hut these kraals were far away from the line of any possible advance, and Colonel Lowe determined to destroy them. Two laconic words from Long to his men, ' set fire,' sufficed to sot them in a blaze, mere flimsy structures of wooden wattle as they were; and, whether the Government will make inquiries as to any order given by Lord Chelmsford for the burning of native villages during the general advance into Zululand such as is here alleged?

COLONEL STANLEY
Sir, my attention was called to the subject by the hon. Member's Question of a few days ago, and I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on that occasion—namely, that there is no reason to believe that these villages were destroyed from any wantonness, but simply out of military necessity. I have not seen any reason to address specific inquiries to Lord Chelmsford upon the subject.

MR. O'DONNELL
Asked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by military necessity?

COLONEL STANLEY
Sir, one meaning is, that they should not afford cover to the enemy.

MR. O'DONNELL
Or afford shelter to women and children. He would now ask, Whether his attention has been called to an extract from a letter of a soldier in the 60th Rifles, published in the "Daily News" of Tuesday last, in which it is stated, with reference to the action against the Zulus of April 2nd, on the march to relieve Ekowe— After the firing was all done, we sent our blacks in amongst them, and they killed all the wounded; and some of them asked our blacks for a drop of water; yes, and they gave them water too—they put their assegais through them and struck them to the ground; whether he has seen the statement published in all the daily papers that Colonel Brabant and the Cape Mounted Yeomanry obtained the surrender of a number of Basutos by throwing dynamite into a cave in which they had taken refuge along with nearly two hundred women and children; and, whether he has any reason to believe these statements are substantially true?

COLONEL STANLEY
Sir, my attention was first called to the first part of the Question when the Paper was put before me this morning, in order that I should answer the Question to-night. I can, however, express no opinion about the matter. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have seen it stated in the daily papers that Colonel Brabant, to obtain the surrender of the Basutos, did use dynamite; but he is not under the orders of my Department. I have, therefore, no information on the subject, nor can I express an opinion on the matter.

New Zealand Herald 25 June 1879 Page 6


TREATMENT OF THK ZULU WOUNDED.

"Three, days ago, sixteen wounded Zulus were brought in on two buck waggons. These men were wounded on the 2nd, had been hoisted into the waggons, and jolted down to Fort Tenedos. Of course all this was unavoidable, but their subsequent treatment in no wise tends to enhance one's admiration, for the civilisation we brag of, and the humanity wo make our boast. For three days after their arrival here these unfortunate wounded were literally left to rot on tho waggons. At most their food supply was scanty, and not more than once did they receive the first meal of the day before 1 o'clock p.m. On the evening of tho third day it struck some one that medical treatment and the shelter of tents would bo advisable, and from that period until this they have had nothing to complain of. But to see them ae I saw them for hours after their arrival here, parched with thirst, craving for food, emaciated, aud suffering from festering, hideous wounds, would have melted tho heart of the most determined enemy of the black races. Not from one or two, but from every one I met came the same expression, the opinion that once taken prisoners aud brought into our camp the wounded should have been immediately and assiduously attended to a sentiment I vesture to think all your readers will share. The case of one of these wounded men was pitiable in the extreme. The Gatling had completely riddled his left leg with balls, the knee was shattered to pieces, and the bone broken at what is technically known aa the lower third of the thigh. When found on the field, the man had declined amputation, and when I saw him mortification had Bet in in tho lower part of the leg. Again questioned, he consented to amputation, and on the evening of the 11th tho operation was performed by Dr. Cheyne and Heath, gentlemen of Jargo experienco amongst tho vast crowds of wounded in the late Turkish war. The amputation itself was most successful, but the physical strength of the native was insufficient to stand the shock, and he succumbed on the following day. Of the remaining fifteen, three had broken thigh bones, and the remainder flesh wounds,
many of them in several places. They are now well-treated and cared for, though many are most exasperating in their conduct; thoroughly ungrateful, and in at least six cases giving utterance to expressions of thankfulness for what they had been enabled to accomplish at Isandhlwaaa, and to hopes that they may soon again have an opportunity of repeating their exploits".

Original Text used.

Reading the closing lines of LH post, perhaps it was widely known the helping the wounded enermy, who not be appricated, and whatever help they did received was paid back with having Isandlwana rubbed in thier faces..

Totally agree OldH

Did the Zulu's show any sort of mercy towards the wounded in any of the battles, especially iSandlwana?

Men who witnessed the carnage after the battle, with all the mutilations and other horrific scenes, must have been enraged at what they saw, and they must have had their blood boiled up and hoped for a chance to get even with these blood thirsty Zulu's, so the wounded Zulu's should have been thankful for the mercy and medical care they received, rather than throw dirt in the faces of those that showed them compassion.

Im sure the Zulu mindset was that they expected no quarter, kill or be killed etc. But the treatment they did get I could imagine them complaining over. And no matter what the circumstances theres no jutification for it, Surely the British as a 'civilised nation' would want to have that moral high ground?
Just not British old fruit.

Harumph