Appendix G

Colonel Luard to Sir Andrew Clarke on the subject of Colonel Durnford

(Original spelling, grammar and punctuation)

Pietermaritzburg

Natal

22nd January 1885

Dear Sir Andrew Clarke,

Colonel Durnford

Some circumstances of a very remarkable nature in connection with the late Colonel Durnford R.E. one of my predecessors here, have been brought to my notice, & I write to you about them because you are the Head of the Corps, & because you are known as a man who has the power to do whatever you consider should be done.

I have also written to Sir Linton Simmons, who was T.G.F at the time when Colonel Durnford's name was so prominently before the public, & to Sir Gerald Graham, whom I believe to have been a personal friend of Colonel Durnford's, if General C.G. Gordon were in England I would write to him also, as I know he was a personal friend, & that this is a case in which he would take a great interest.

If, after reading this correspondence you will confer with Sir Linton Simmons & Sir Gerald Graham, & will let me know what mode of action it has been decided to adopt in this matter, I shall be much obliged, & I beg that you will understand that whatever trouble it may take, or however unpleasant it may render my position here socially, I as a brother Officer & one of the successors of the late Colonel Durnford, am quite prepared to act, if desired, as a local agent in this matter, & to see that justice is done.

But, after due deliberation I have decided that it is most fit to refer this grave matter in the first instance to officers senior to myself.

I have to go back to this day six year ago, when Colonel Durnford was killed at Isandhlwana [sic]. Dispatches & letters were written, statements & speeches were made & ultimately he was made the scapegoat for the disaster; it is only quite recently that an article by a Military writer appeared in “Blackwood” in which the author was evidently still of opinion that Colonel Durnford was mainly responsible for that disaster to our arms, & this must be assumed to be the general impression both with the general public, & also amongst the great majority of military men, & especially with the latter, as the published official account by the Intelligence Department still conveys that impression.

Prior to the 22nd January 1879 Colonel Durnford received certain orders, & though it was stated soon afterwards & repeated by Lord Chelmsford on the 18th August, & again on the 2nd September 1880 in the House of Lords that Colonel Durnford had received orders to take charge of the camp at Isandhlwana, it subsequently transpired from Colonel Crealock on the 18th May 1882, i.e. nearly three & a half years afterwards by a reference to his note book, that Colonel Durnford had not received orders to take charge of that camp. It must be apparent to any Military man that it never could have been intended that he should have assumed that charge, being at the time in independent command of another column of the army, more especially as not a word appears to have said, either to Colonel Glyn whose camp it was, or to Colonel Pulleine who was left in temporary charge of it, that such a change of command was contemplated! It was also intended to move the camp on up-country as soon as possible.

When Colonel Durnford arrived at the camp, he, as senior officer present seems to have taken cognizance of the state of affairs, so far as it was possible for a man in his position to do, & he stated distinctly that he was not going to remain in camp, an expression of which he certainly would not have made use, had orders been conveyed to him that he was to do so. On the contrary there can be no doubt now that he proceeded on his way to join & help his general in the battle that was supposed to be going on at the front.

However the military authorities refused to allow the question of relative responsibility for the disaster at Isandhlwana to be re opened, & the stigma attached to Colonel Durnford's name never having been publicly removed, will remain till that is done.

But what became of the original order, which was sent to Colonel Durnford? & it is mainly in connection with that subject that I now address you.

For four months the bodies of our slaughtered soldiers laid unburied on the field of Isandhlwana, within eight miles of a British force, & with no one to oppose their burial, but on the 21st May 1879 a cavalry force under General Marshall, composed of the K.D.Gs, the Natal Carbineers, &c., visited the field & buried some of the bodies, including Colonel Durnford's.

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 from 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 same spot & that he Mr. Davis rode post 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.

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 enquiries 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.

The K.D.Gs went from Natal to India. Colonel E. Durnford wrote twice, at intervals of six months, to Mr. Longhurst, but these letters were not replied to. A third letter was written & sent to Mr. Longhurst's Commanding Officer, Colonel Master, to be given to Mr. Longhurst, who then, three years having now elapsed since the battle of Isandhlwana, replied, confirming in the most circumstantial way his previous letter. A copy of this letter was sent to Natal to a friend of the late Colonel Durnford, who, anxious that Captain Shepstone would have every chance of proving his innocence or of confessing privately, stipulated that he should be told privately of the contents of Mr. Longhurst's statement.

Captain Shepstone met with a complete denial. But I am informed that he did not merely say “I took no papers”, but added, “I could not have taken any because there was no coat on the body.”

Captain Shepstone then wrote to Colonel E. Durnford, & sent the names of four persons, viz. Mr. Royston, Mr. Cook, Mr. Macfarlane, & Yabez Mulife, (a Basuto who had been attendant on the late Colonel Durnford), as persons who would support by affidavit the statement that there was no papers & no coat on the body when found.

Captain Shepstone subsequently forwarded affidavits Mr. Royston, Mr. Cook & Yabez Mulife, but not one from Mr. Macfarlane. On these affidavits being forwarded to Natal they were examined by a friend of Colonel Durnford's, & they seemed in several respects so insufficient & unsatisfactory that further reference was made to Captain Shepstone, who caused Mr. Cook to make a second affidavit.

By this time very grave suspicions had arisen in the minds of the late Colonel Durnford's friends that the original orders sent to that officer had been found on his body & concealed, & enquiries were then set on foot with the view of obtaining further information, especially to ascertain whether the body of the late Colonel Durnford had or had not a coat upon it when it was found.

The result of these enquiries seems to establish beyond a doubt the fact that he had a coat on at that time.

I must now proceed to explain the position occupied by Captain Shepstone. This gentleman usually known in Natal as “Offy” is the son of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, & is a prominent member of the most powerful & influential family in this Colony. He himself is one of the most astute lawyers in the Colony, & is what is termed a general favorite.

The evidence will be laid before you in extenso presently, but I may say that, when it was far less complete than it is now, the case was submitted to an English Barrister who said it was strong enough to take into any English Court of Justice, i.e. in the Natal Court he seemed to doubt whether justice might be so readily obtained against so powerful & public a man.

It was subsequently submitted privately to a trustworthy lawyer in Natal, who gave it as his private opinion that the case was strong enough to justify any judge in requiring the other side to disprove it, & he has since admitted that if the case were brought into Court. Captain Shepstone must be ruined.

Nevertheless, as an instance of the powerful position held by the Shepstone family in Natal this gentleman whilst giving his private opinion as a friend, refused absolutely to have anything to do with the conduct of the case under any circumstances, as, if he took it up, whether he won or lost it, his position would be rendered so unpleasant that he could scarcely continue to live in the Colony.

I had thought of obtaining an interview with Captain Shepstone, with the view of attempting to get to the bottom of this matter, but I am of opinion that I should not be doing right in taking that step. He has had three chances of clearing himself, & has not availed himself of those chances. In fact it is chiefly due to his attempt to prove too much that the establishment of his guilt has been rendered possible. I do not believe that I am at liberty to render myself individually liable to any legal action which the subtlety of the law might devise, a liability which should be born, if at all, by the Secretary of State for War.

The course which seems the right one to take is that I, as representing the Secretary of State for War, should receive authority to engage the services of a well qualified lawyer, who should be instructed in the first instance to have a private interview with Captain Shepstone, lay before him sufficient evidence to convince him, if he is open to conviction, that his case is one which is sure to go against him if brought into Court, & ask him whether he has anything to urge against a criminal information for theft being laid against him personally.

If he then admits the truth of the charge, & states that he is not alone responsible, & can produce evidence which shall be satisfactory, i.e. if he states – his statement being duly supported; that he took these papers & handed them over to some one else, the prosecution might be diverted to some one even more guilty than himself. If, on the other hand, Captain Shepstone on being interviewed, adhered to his denial, I should have authority to take immediate steps to prosecute him, or take such steps as the law may empower, including the appointment of commissions to take the evidence of those persons in India or elsewhere whose evidence is so important.

I may say that there is one lawyer in Natal in whose ability to conduct such a case & in whose intrepidity to undertake it, regardless of consequences, I should have full confidence, & I should be prepared, if duly authorised, to instruct him accordingly.

But as it is possible that, for some reason or other, at present unknown (for I have not communicated with him.) that gentleman may decline to undertake the case, it would be most advisable that a well qualified should be sent from England with full instructions how to proceed, & who should act, if possible, with the lawyer above referred to, who otherwise would be secured by the defendant.

It is, however, for consideration whether, if prosecution has to be undertaken such action should be instituted in our English Court or in a Natal Court, for it must be borne in mind that several of the most important witnesses are colonial gentlemen who are intimately acquainted with, & are in some cases personal friends of Captain Shepstone & the temptation to avoid the consequences of having been instrumental in ruining that gentleman viz the weight of displeasure which could be exerted by members of his powerful family, might have a deterrent effect in obtaining confirmatory of the statements they have made.

This is a point which should be determined beforehand & on which I should receive instructions, but it is manifest that much care would have to be taken to ensure the arrangements being such as will conduce to success & not to failure. But, whatever course it is decided to adopt, I wish it to be clearly understood that it is not in the smallest degree from what is termed a feeling of revenge, that any of these preliminary steps have been undertaken.

All who have been interested in this matter have worked from no other feeling than the earnest desire that a gallant soldier who, whatever others may have done, did his duty nobly & well, shall not be defamed. They have felt as I feel that no conduct is more disgraceful, no act more cowardly, than defamation of the dead.

Captain Shepstone is one whose connection with the case must be considered from an abstract point of view. I am only one of a vast number of people who would regard his conviction as a matter most sad in itself, but justice must take its course, &, if convicted he must take on his own head the full consequence of his crime. Something will at all events been done to show what means were adopted to ruin the reputation of as gallant a soldier as ever breathed.

I am Dear Sir Andrew
Clarke Yours vy truly
C E Luard.