Longhurst second letter to Edward Durnford

Saul Davids Zulu the Heroism and Tragedy quotes a letter written by Surgeon Longhurst, he gives his source as

Longhurst to Edward Durnford, 20 Aug. 1882.


Does anyone know were the letter is kept ?

I've tryed the RE museum, they say they don't know of such a letter but they have the other ones he wrote


Cheers

Hi
The obvious place is F Colenso and E Durnford's book - I've lent my copy to someone so can't check at the moment but you can get it via the library. You specifically need the 2nd edition as there is a lot more included in it - given the date that would be logical. The alternative is to e-mail Saul David's publisher with a page reference and ask him to pass it on direct to the author to answer.

DB

I do know that Durnford wrote on I think two occasions without reply. The third time he addressed the letter to Colonel Masters of the KDG , this would be the letter you refer to from 1882.
Without quoting verbatim I seem to recall that he confirmed his prievious comments from the letter 22nd May 1879.

Regards

Springbok

I have his first letter, ill post later.

But Saul David says that Francis asked Edward to recheck with longhurst and its his reply i am looking for.


Cheers

Julian

Thanks for the tip, i've PM Saul David but i dout there will be a reply. Springbok, here is his first letter in full.

Meerut-Bengal 20th February 1882

Dear Colonel Durnford,

I must apologize for not having answered your letter which came to hand just as the K.D.Gds were preparing to march to Agra for duty at His Excellency the Viceroy’s Durbar. Colonel Master has kindly
Spoken to me respecting the purport of the letter you addressed to me, and in reply I beg to state that on the morning of the 21st May, 1879, I marched with the K.D.Gds from our Camp at Rorke’s Drift to Isandhlwana,& when on the neck of the Hill Between the two Koppies we dismounted
our horses & commenced to inspect the scene of the disaster which occurred about four months
Before. After having walked some considerable distance in the long Tambooki grass (leading my
Horse) among the dead, the first Officer’s body I saw was that of your Brother, wearing his scarlet vest
under his coat & whilst looking at him & being struck with the
Well preserved condition of his features, Captain Shepstone of the Natal Carabineers came up to me with your Brother’s native Servant, the latter immediately indentifying the body as that of his late master. Capt s remarking to me “that is poor Durnford” & I replied “yes it is”. We then noticed & remarked what A stand his men had made to defend themselves, & the great number of Zulus which had fallen around them. Whilst we were conversing the native servant picked up the remnant of an old tent to lay your Brother’s body in, & before it was rolled round it, Capt S searched the Body & I Saw him
distinctly take it two finger rings, a pocket knife with your brother’s name engraved on the metallic handle, also a packet of letters from his coat pocket, but as I did not touch anything belonging to the Colonel I am unable to say whether the letter in question were of an Official nature or otherwise,
but judging from the contour of the packet I am of the opinion that there were official paper in it.
After the above were removed, the body was carefully placed in a large crack in the ground & stones laid
over it, & part of a bullock yoke put at the head with the Colonel’s name scratched on it…I then took the outlines of the
Spot of burial…

Yrs ever sincerely

(Signed) S. Longhurst A.V.D.K D.Gds

Quote :

"We then noticed & remarked what A stand his men had made to defend themselves, & the great number of Zulus which had fallen around them"

There were no dead Zulus maybe the odd on here and there, but no great numbers. Most were taken away.

" In the Natal Witness for the 27th May, & in the supplement of the 7th June, a sentence occurred as follows “after the papers & “maps found on Durnford’s person had been removed, a pile of “stones was heaped over the body.” It has been stated to me that this sentence about “the papers “& maps,” was originated by a telegram which was received by the Editor of the Witness from a Mr. Dormer, then at Ladysmith, that this gentleman received the information on which his telegram was based directly from the mouth of a
Mr. Alfred Davis, one of the proprietors of the Witness newspaper, who was anxious to find the remains of his brother who had fallen at Isandhlwana, that, being at Rorke’s Drift in May 1879, & having been a member of the Natal Carbineers

Mr. Davis seized the opportunity of one of that Corps being ill to borrow his arms & accoutrements & uniform & accompany the Natal Carbineers, that he found his brother’s body & took form the pocket of the jacket his sister’s letter, written only a few days before the disaster, which tends to show how little the remains had been disturbed since the battle, that Colonel Durnford’s body was found at the samespot & that he Mr. Davis rode past haste to Ladysmith, where he met Mr. Dormer &, being very much fatigued, gave him (Mr. Dormer who was correspondent of another paper) the information for himself, on condition that he would telegraph it to the Witness – which he did.

It says Mr Davis was a member of the NC. ( Can this be confirmed) I think is a bit far fetched to believe that he borrowed another persons uniform for the sole purpose of finding his brothers body at Isandlwana. And then as luck would have it finds his brother body, along with Durnfords. The only letter I think that was found that day was the letter Davis took from his brothers body.
    
"A friend of Colonel Durnford’s, on seeing this sentence in the Witness, went & questioned a certain Theophilus Shepstone about it, having been the officer in command of the party of Natal Carbineers who found & buried Colonel Durnford’s body, & his reply was that it was quite a mistake, there was no papers of any kind, & could not have been as there was no coat. So the matter was dropped, the questioner having at that time full confidence in the truth of Captain Shepstone’s statement.
    

But on the 22nd May 1879, i.e. the day after the visit to the field of the battle of Isandhlwana, veterinary Surgeon Longhurst K.D.G. writing home to his friends in England, described the burial of Colonel Durnford at which he had been present, & mentioned amongst other articles taken from his body before burial “a letter”. When Mr. Longhurst’s letter reached its destination a friend of the Durnford family was present, & heard it read aloud, & Colonel E. Durnford about it, who at once wrote out to Natal to request that enquries might be made. Mr. Longhurst was then in the Transvaal but on his return & before arriving at Pietermaritzburg, he was purposely interviewed by Asst. Comm. General Elmes & he then verbally confirmed what he had previously written home a week afterwards, however during which time he had been in P.M. Burg he declined to answer any questions on the subject."

Why would Longhurst suddenly clam up. He had enough to say prior to himself be interviewed.

As anyone seen what the order says. Jackson found it, is there a copy of it on display.

Impi

What the order says in every book on Isandlwana.

Jackson did not find it, the origianl was taken by Shepstone, he found Crealocks copy to the WO.



Cheers

impi
Julian has allready described the locating of the letter at the RE museum and the subsequent examination by David Jackson.
Regards

"P.M.B. 25 June 85
F. Pearse & Co
14 Cole St.

E.D. Natal Witness Office

Dear Sir
Referring to yr. Advertisement wh. Appeared a few weeks ago in the Natal Witness respecting relics of the late Colonel Durnford. I write to inform you that I have in my possession a document which was picked up by my brother A. Pearse late trooper in the Natal Carbineers. It appears to be the instructions issued by Lord Chelmsford to the late Colonel on taking the field.
I have written to my brother to ascertain whether he is willing to part with it in the event of your wishing to have it in your possession.

Yours truly

(signed) F. Pearse"

Just how many letters were picked up referring to Durnfords order, it appears every Carbineer that visited Isandlwana found a the orders

Trooper Pease and Surgoen Gubbins found Durnfords portmantea on the field of battle and took the papers from it.
Gubbins most likely found some family letters and Pearse found the order to column commanders and an order from the 19th of Janaury. Gubbins letters went to Francis and Pearces papers went to the RE museum.

Captain Shepstone removed his last order from Colonel Crealock from Durnfords coat and had it suppressed. He had a number of reasons for doing so, blamed durnford for the loss of his brother, never forgave durnford for accusing his regament of cowadice.



Cheers

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Trooper Pease and Surgoen Gubbins found Durnfords portmantea on the field of battle and took the papers from it.
Gubbins most likely found some family letters and Pearse found the order to column commanders and an order from the 19th of Janaury. Gubbins letters went to Francis and Pearces papers went to the RE museum.

Captain Shepstone removed his last order from Colonel Crealock from Durnfords coat and had it suppressed. He had a number of reasons for doing so, blamed durnford for the loss of his brother, never forgave durnford for accusing his regament of cowadice.



Cheers

Never proved DB.

Cheers

Then what do you make of Longhursts letters, Davis's Telegram, all the evidence
that point that Shepstone was lying about the body being coatless ? His motives for
removing papers.




Cheers

You could very well be right. The investigations took some strange turns, witnesses changing their minds, army officers not being given leave to attend. And eventually Frere laid down very strict lines of enquiry that gave Edward Durnford no choice but to retract.
The question really is why would he conceal the blood soaked letters anyway when he didnt know what was in them? By the time he got to the bodyt the blood would have congealed and sealed them tight. So he didnt know what he had really.
That said, now propose a motive that would stand alone.

regards

And what would have been achived by removing the so called order/ s

Exactly my point.

regards

1.Blames Durnford for the death of his brother.
2.Never forgave Durnford for critising his regiment of cowardise.
3.He was politically in a different camp to Durnford and the Colensos, and his father was a supporter of Chelmsford.

Why would he lie about the body having a coat on if he had nothing to hide ?

Why did 2 people see papers being removed, if no papers were taken ?

intresting.


Cheers

All these innuendos where spread by the Colenso clan. She was in love with Durnford, and had nothing better to do than to start this course of action to discredit The Good Lord Chelmsford and Stepstone. And only fools would believe it. Of which there seems to be many on this forum.

DB 14
You still havent answered the question, how would Shepstone have known what was in the papers and secondly if he really wanted to condemn Durnford why didnt he destroy them?

regards

That would have been my next question. Shepstone would have had no idea what was written in the Order, and it would have had relevance in any shape or form. And as for blaming Durnford for his sons death well that's just laughable. :lol: The Shepstone's were a well and respected familey. Unlike the Colenso Clan.

CTSG

The Colenso's merly investigated when they heard from the paper that papers had been removed, also
Edward was told about Longhursts first letter, and requested more infomation, Longhurst sent back a full
reply of what he had seen, which matched Davis's telegram.
Shepstone never lost a son, i never said he did, he lost a brother.

Springbok

Durnfords last orders from Crealock have never been recovered, he recieved it mounted on horse back,
his horse survived but no orders were found on it, Pearse and Gubbins took the papers from his
portmantu, and the last order wasn't in there either. So he most likely had it on him when he was killed.
Why would Shepstone take it i have no idea, but if he didn't why did 2 people see him take papers ?
Why did he say the body was coatless when it wasn't ?



Cheers

Quote :

Why would Shepstone take it i have no idea, but if he didn't why did 2 people see him take papers ?

They supposedly saw him take some papers, they don't say they were the orders. ( Speculation)

Davis's telegram to the Natal Witness

"After the papers & “maps found on Durnford’s person had been removed, a pile of stones was heaped
over the body.”

Longhust letter

"Capt S searched the Body & saw him distinctly take it two finger rings, a pocket knife with your brother’s
name engraved on the metallic handle, also a packet of letters from his coat pocket."

Shepstone denied taking any saying that the body had been coatless when he found it and there for
no papers could have been removed, he was lying, over 5 people who were present remembered the coat
and one even took a button from it as a momorial.


Cheers

Quote :

"Capt S searched the Body & saw him distinctly take it two finger rings, a pocket knife with your brother’s
name engraved on the metallic handle, also a packet of letters from his coat pocket."

DB The packet of letters coud have been personal letters from Colenso. That might be why she was so interested in getting them back. It's doesn't mean the packet of letters contained the order.

Then why wouldn't Shepstone give them back ?

He denied ever taking any papers.



Cheers

And why didn't the so called witness come forward sooner. It was only after Colenso joined forces with Edward, and Luchard got involved did any of this come to light.

Impi

How did Davis or Longhurst know the papers hadn't gone to the family with the knife and rings ?

Davis's telegram was made in May 1879, by the time Davis was questioned, he was very ill and died
before he could reply.

Francis asked Shepstone about the telegram, he denied it and Francis believed him, but then
Edward heard from Longhurst's first letter in England that papers had been removed so began to inquire.

Longhurst confirmed his story in 1879, gave over his full account in 1882 and would have attended the COI but was refused leave to attend.



Cheers

DB. The witness to the papers being removed was Surgeon Longhurst, in a letter dated 20 feb 1882 three years after to Edward Durnford. And prior to that a letter written to friends in England. A key element was his statement that Col Durnford was wearing a coat over his red vest, in this coat were the documents. Shepstone when attacked by Luard produced three witnesses to testify that there was no coat, for one reason or another all three statements were rejected ( Royston, Cook and Yabez Mulife) a further statement from macfarlane was withdrawn.
Luards case against Shepstone was subsequently withdrawn and he issued an apology.

The chances are that when interviewed all 3 witnesses gave different versions of the event ok bearing in-mind it was 3 years after the event. But whatever it was Luard withdrew his cas and gave an apology. People would have taken this issue more seriously if it hadnt been seen that Colenso was just out to tarnish the reputations of The Good Lord Chelmsford ect. It was a women driven to clear her lovers name at whatever the cost. It backed fired and died a death.

CTSG

Where does that come from ? They missed out a witness, Davis.

Geo Macfarlane told Colonel Hawthorne that

“The body had on a blue patrol jacket and trousers with red stripes, the stripes were so discolored with wet it was hard to tell what colour they had been. He noticed about the arm of the coat the sleeves seemed to be hooked across the body.”

Trooper Clarence wrote that

“The body of the late Colonel Durnford and placed in canvas, and covered over with a few large stones and placed in a large Donga. It was in the uniform of a coat from which I distinctly remember a button being torn by someone
who was present with me. In my mind there is no doubt on this point, it was from the coat the button was taken.”

D.B Scott

“My brother and I took your brothers body from the covering in which it had been laid, and placed it in a coffin already prepared. The cloths consisted of a coat, half a scarlet waist coat, shirt and a singlet. I examined the withered arm. I fully recognized the head.”



Cheers

DB. There are just to many eyewitness accounts to do with finding Durnfords body.
Some say he was buried in a donga, other say a large crack in the ground, someone said they marked the spot with a spade, then there's the one with the dead Zulu covered by a shield at Durfords feet. It's just go on and on.

CTSG

What do you mean ?

A donga is in effect a crack in the groud, i don't see what you meen by the dead Zulu or the spade, many
men had there graves marked, and lots of people ( Read Black ) had Zulus near them.



Cheers

Extract from Mehlokazulu Kasihayo

A: No. I saw Colonel Durnford returing from the Buffalo River. I didn't see who killed him, but when I returned, Some men from the iNgobamakhosi Regiment were taking some things and they called me over to look at the strange character on hi arm. I'll try to find out about the sabre and if I can obtain it, I'll return it.

Beats me what they were taking, they left the rings, pocket knife and watch.
I wonder if they took his coat, like they took the red costs of the dead soldiers.

I was referring to what I have read. To many versions of how they buried Durnford at Isandlwana.

CTSG

They took his boots, hat, belts, revolver see Jabez Molife.



Cheers

"Yesterday Dr. Thrupp (a civilian from London, who came out as special surgeon for one year and is going home again) called here and brought a watch which he had taken from the body of an officer on the morning of January 23, to see if we could recognise it. It was Colonel Durnford's. The body was found lying within the camp, near to the hospital, with some two hundred others lying around him. It was not mutilated. ... It is strange that two months have passed before this fact has reached us, though we have made all manner of inquiries. This has apparently arisen from Dr. Thrupp's want of personal acquaintance with Colonel Durnford, whom he had only seen once before."

This guy was the first to find the body.

And why would Stepstone have given the orders his supposedly took, to Crealock. If he had do you really think Crealock would have kept them. He would have destroyed them the day he got them.

CTSG

His last order has never been recovered, so it most likely was destroyed.



Cheers

No!! I was referring to the packet removed from his body.

CTSG

The packet removed from the body has never come to light.

The papers taken from his portmantu is a diffrent story.



Cheers

You posted.

"Subject: Re: Durnfords body removed from Isandlwana   Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:58 pm
This is the finding of Durnfords body and the removal of his orders.
According to Forbes Durnfords body was discovered in a patch of long grass near the right flank of the camp. His big moustache still clinging to the withered face. Forbes also added “Captain Offy Shepstone recognized him at once and identified him further by rings one the fingers and a knife in the pocket with the name one it. A stalwart Zulu covered by his shield lay at the Colonels feet. Around the Colonel almost in a ring lay a dozen dead men half being Natal Carabineers all riddled with assegai stabs. Clearly they had all rallied around Durnford in one last gallant attempt to cover the flank of the camp. What Forbes didn’t mention and possible didn’t witness was offy Shepstone removing a packet of papers from Durnfords body. This packet almost certainly contained the order to clear his name but the papers were given to Crealock in secret and suppressed for many years. Durnford was buried in a donga not far from were he fell, a spade was put in the grave to mark his spot. In September his body was exhumed and given full military honour and buried in fort Napier. In the 1960s His papers were found in the royal engineers Museum. They were stuck together with his blood and other substances but were separated and he was cleared."

Just trying to point out the different versions of events.

I got it wrong, i had just read Saul Davids book.



Cheers

Last from me tonight.

" In his recent impartial study of Anthony Durnford, R W F Droogleever rightly summed up Frances Colenso’s contribution:

"It is sad that Frances Colenso had wasted her energy on what turned out to be simply a paper chase.  If she had directed her abilities towards exposing the ambiguity of that final order in terms of previous orders,  she might well have succeeded in vindicating Anthony Durnford’s reputation"

She was a bitter and twisted women.

DB. You like Pittbull. You won't let go. Well Done. Keep it up. Julian will be reading your work one day.

Interesting discussion.

What happen to the Edward Durnford & Luchard. Did they just give up.

Hi Ulundi

I think you mean Edward Durnford and Charles Laurd, and yes they gave up in the end, as most of there witnesses were unable to attend, and serval ( Molife ) changed there accounts. Laurd has forced to appolagise to Shepstone.




Cheers

Thanks. Suppose it really was a pointless excercise.

Can anyone confirm if the letter exists ?

It isn't with the RE museum, or refered to in any other book apart from Saul Davids.




Cheers

Regarding the "Coat" discussion. i'm trying to understand why Durford would have been wearing a coat during the Battle, the heat must have been something else.

Mehlokazulu Kasihayo say's "I saw Colonel Durnford returing from the Buffalo River. I didn't see who killed him, but when I returned, Some men from the iNgobamakhosi Regiment were taking some things and they called me over to look at the strange character on hi arm. I'll try to find out about the sabre and if I can obtain it, I'll return it."

What would they have been removing from his body, as it seems that most of the items were taken by other various persons who visited the Battlefield. We know most of the soldiers bodies were striped of clothing, so why leave Durnford's in his cost.

Hi Ulundi .
I think as Durnford was well known to the zulu people , his coat / vest wasnt removed possiblly out of respesct . After all he was on the Boundary Commission which ruled in favour of the zulu .
Cheers 90th.

His Knife, Belts, Boots, Hat were taken. If his coat was covered in blood, they would have left it, they didn't touch
iteams of cloths with blood on them. Given his watch was stopped by blood, then his coat most likely would be covered
in it.





Cheers