The restoration of Colonel Anthony William Durnford's Reputa

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Can anyone give an overview of the relationship Anthony had with Miss Colenso. Under what circumstances did they meet? Frances was the daughter of a bishop, was it through the missionary work they met. I believe Durnford was labelled as a Zulu sympathiser, again was this to do with the work the Colenso’s undertook in South Africa. And I also believe Durnford already had a wife while entertaining Frances. So I assume his wife was at home in England.

Hi impi. Good to see you still posting. Not easy starting new decussions. Well Done

Here's some information to get the discussion started.

In 1864 they returned to England and his wife ran off with another man, leaving her daughter behind, never to be seen again. His family who took care of the child hushed up the scandal. Durnford could not get a divorce because of his commission, so he had to go abroad. On his way to China in 1865 (to join Charles "Chinese" Gordon) his health deteriorated due to a mental breakdown, aggravated by heat apoplexy, necessitating his return to England. He spent 3 months in Ceylon supposedly being nursed back to health by Gordon [alleged by his brother Edward in his book on Anthony]

While in Pietermaritzburg he fell in love with Frances Ellen Colenso, (died 1887 of tuberculosis) daughter of the Anglican Bishop of Natal, the Rt. Rev. John Colenso. Their friendship was very discreet. She later wrote a book about Anthony with his brother Edward.

In September of 1875 Sir Henry Bulwer became Lieutenant-Governor of Natal and he ousted Durnford from Natal. On 10th October, 1875 he was officially relieved of his civil appointment by Captain Albert Henry Hime, of the Royal Engineers. Durnford was acutely embarrassed at being relieved by a junior officer of his own corps, especially by one who had only been a captain for eighteen months. In May 1876 he was replaced as Commanding Royal Engineer, Natal, by Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Thomas Brooke, another subordinate. On 27th May he embarked for Britain, it was his intention to seek specialist opinion on his disabled arm. On advice he "took the waters" at a spa in the Black Forest, Germany. He took his 18 year old daughter with him. But he found the regime tedious, and hastened to return to army life. His next posting was uninspiring he was tasked with maintaining the three forts, which commanded Queenstown harbour, Ireland. The cold and the frequent Atlantic storms did little to relieve his physical suffering, to, which was added mental torment, as he grow more and more morose. It all proved to be too much and he collapsed with exhaustion. On medical advice he left Ireland. Apparently with the help of the intercession of his old friend, Charles Gordon, he was reappointed C.R.E. Natal. (He was posted in Mauritius. He then switched duty stations with Lt. Col. Brook, RE and returned to South Africa in 1877.)

Four months after Durnford was killed at Rorke's Drift, on May 21, 1879, his body was discovered by a loyal servant, Jabez. He wrapped it in part of a wagon sail cover, placed it in a donga and covered it with stones. A yoke stay and shovel marked the grave. On Oct 12 his body was exhumed and reburied in the military cemetery at Fort Napier, Pietermaritzburg with full military honours at the behest of the Colenso family.

Source: durnfordfamilyhistory

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Thanks Littlehand.

So his wife ran off with another man. I wonder why i thought he had left her for Frances Ellen Colenso. Must have read it somewhere. What about the Zulu sympathiser lable was this true.

Subject: miss frances colenso and durnford. Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:15 am

hi all .
Not wishing to be picky , but the family history has Durnford KIA at R. Drift Suspect

.
I dont think ' sympathiser ' is the right word to describe Durnford . But he did have a respect for
the africans , especially those who had been with him at the Bushman's Pass . He did
I think rule in favour of the zulu's at the boundary commission , but that I think was to put the Boer's
on the back foot more than anything else . Happy to be corrected .
cheers 90th.

Colenso’s Mission Party

"Another cohesive group were the passengers of the Jane Morice, which arrived in May 1855. Bishop Colenso had chartered this vessel to bring his missionary party to Natal, so few of those on board were immigrants as such, although a number were to end their days in the Colony. Besides the mission party there were also some of Colenso’s friends, and a few ex-parishioners on board."

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Thanks for the replies, When Colenso passed away was she interned with Col: Durnford. Love after death you might say.

Isle of White

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

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Thanks Littlehand Express delivery. I was in the Isle of White a few years ago.

Subject: fannie colenso Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:57 am

hi Impi.
Frances Colenso and A. Durnford weren't interred together as far as I am aware . :)
cheers 90th.

Posts : 1074 Join date : 2009-10-16

Hi All,
It is strange to hear this story that Durnford's wife ran away with another man,
She was buried in Teddington Cemetery after living her later life in a Grace and Favour apartment at Hampton Court, these apartments were set aside for those wives of senior officals and officers who died whilst in service.
I do not think she would have been given such an apartment under the circumstances of leaving her husband for another man.
Durnford was orginally buried on the battlefield of Isandhlwana, and re-interred at Fort Napier Military Cemetery,
Frances Colenso is buried in Ventnor Cemetery Isle of Wight.

Rai
Keynshamlighthorse

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Quote :: I do not think she would have been given such an apartment under the circumstances of leaving her husband for another man.

Good Point. She would have been in disgrace.

I think Durnford was playing away.

In his book, "The Road to Isandhlwana - Colonel Anthony Durnford in Natal and Zululand", R.W.F. Droogleever asserts that Durnford, "found it difficult to come to terms with personal misfortune" and in that context may well have blamed his wife (Frances Tranchell) for the loss of a second child in infancy in 1860 and that this, "brought about their separation and his subsequent decision to leave for Gibraltar" in December 1860. Droogleever goes on to say, "there seems little purpose in determining who was to blame for the separation, though one writer has confidently asserted (on somewhat flimsy evidence) that fault lay with Frances".

As regards the apartment, Droogleever explains that Durnford's youngest brother, Arthur, also a Royal Engineer, kept in contact with Frances Tranchell and it was he ( Arthur), who, "secured for her a 'grace and favour' apartment at Hampton Court " in 1866.

Turning to the relationship with Frances Colenso, it appears it may well have been a bit of a one sided affair. Durnford was a frequent visitor to Bishop Colenso's residence at Bishopstowe and it was here, Droogleever tells us, that Durnford, "struck up a particularly close relationship with Frances" but that, "On Durnford's side it should be said that the relationship seems to have remained correct and proper" and argues the reasons for this to be a mix of manners, morals and a "reluctance" for too close a relationship because of the "painful" experience of separation.

Elsewhere in his book, Droogleever cites examples of where Durnford certainly had the interests of Africans at heart, including the Zulu, although as regards the latter, I, personally, have always wondered to what extent his sympathies were influenced by his friendship with the Colensos.

Just a few thoughts to throw into the enigmatic mix that is Durnford!

U

Posts : 1603 Join date : 2009-09-21

Umbiki. May I ask what you paid for this book "The Road to Isandhlwana - Colonel Anthony Durnford in Natal and Zululand", And who is the Author.

Hi Dave

I bought my copy second-hand on e-bay (can't remember exactly how much but £10, £15 - something like that) so I can't help you much on the retail price. But what I can tell you is the title is as you quoted and the author is R W F Droogleever. First published in 1992 by Greenhill Books, ISBN 1-85367-118-5. The bulk of the book covers Durnford's career between 1873 and 1879 with some nice photos, maps and illustrations. Worth getting hold of a copy if you can (in my opinion) - I am sure a google search or similar - or even e-bay? - would offer up a copy somewhere. Hope this is helpful.

U

Posts : 37 Join date : 2010-07-25

Does anyone know what Ellen Colenso did after Durnford was killed? Where did she go? Was she ever in Cape Town? When did she contract TB?

Hi Horsefixer

There are a few paragraphs on Frances Ellen Colenso in the very excellent Greaves/Knight publication, " Who's Who in the Zulu War 1879 Vol. II. Colonials & Zulus".

It seems "Nell" left Natal for England in October 1879 where she teamed up with Durnford's brother, Edward, to produce A History of the Zulu War and its Origins which according to Greaves & Knight was " a critique of British policy and vindication of Anthony Durnford".

Nell returned to Natal in the 1880s when the post AZW settlement had pitched Zululand into civil war and began work on another book, The Ruin of Zululand which was not published until after her father's death in 1883. By this time she was already suffering from tuberculosis which "she had contracted while nursing a sick soldier in 1878" but continued, with her sisters, to campaign on behalf of the Zulu until her death in 1887.

Hope this is helpful.

U

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

Horsefixer. She wrote a few books on the Zulu War or should I say try to write character assignations, one of them being the Good Lord Chelmsford. She with the help of
Edward Durnford, try to clear Col: Durnford of any wrongdoing at Isandlwana. She contracted T.B while living on the Isle of White and was buried in the same place.

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Gent's we seem to have Durnford all over the place. So i have move impi's post under this new topic, which hopefully will provide some interesting information on the attempt to restore Durnford's Reputation by those who knew and loved him. By ADMIN

A son of General EW Durnford, RE Durnford entered the ROYAL ENGINEERS Corps and after service in Ceylon and elsewhere, was appointed Acting Colonial Engineer in command of the Royal Engineers, commandant of Police and commandant of Volunteers in Natal in November 1873. He was Acting Colonial Engineer between the retirement of Peter PATERSON and the appointment, in 1875, of Captain AH HIME, RE Durnford quickly became unpopular with the Natal colonists when he struck up a friendship with the highly controversial Bishop JW COLENSO, with whom he shared a concern about the fair treatment of the native in Natal (a prime point in his dismissal as Colonial Engineer by Sir Garnet Wolseley). Durnford was principally, and successfully, concerned with road-making in Natal. He reputedly designed several forts and block-houses, and signed the plans for the Natal Mounted Police fort at Estcourt, named after him. This fort was built after the Langalibalele incident at Bushman's Pass in November 1873, an affair which added to his unpopularity. Despite a severe elbow wound he was back at work within a few days, designing fortifications for Pietermaritzburg. He returned to England after his dismissal but came back within a few months to fight in the Zulu War. He was killed in battle of Isandlwana in 1879.

Friend or Foe. Idea

Account of Durnford's service in South Africa, an apologia edited by his brother;

"The court of inquiry into the loss of the camp duly attributed most of the blame for the defeat to Durnford's rash conduct. This was hardly surprising since Chelmsford's staff were determined to make Durnford the scapegoat for the disaster. His brother Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Durnford and Frances Colenso endeavoured through their writings and public lobbying to rehabilitate his reputation. They did not wholly succeed. Durnford's heroic death did much to blunt public criticism of him, but there can be little doubt that his actions contributed materially to the disaster at Isandlwana. As Sir Theophilus Shepstone wrote of him, Durnford was "as plucky as a lion but as imprudent as a child"."

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

Totally agree. Lets look at those involved and what they produced to try and take the blame off him.

I will add Charles Edward Luard court marshalled for his involvement in the campaign.

"The fight to re-establish Durnford's reputation was led by his brother, Edward Durnford, his fiancée, Miss Frances Ellen Colenso, daughter of John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal, and Charles Edward Luard. Luard made himself party to a letter writing campaign, accusing fellow officers of a conspiracy to blacken Durnford’s name. He was subsequently court martialled and censured for his actions."

So far we have.

Lieutenant-Colonel Edward.
Durnford and Frances Colenso.
Charles Edward Luard.

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Some More On Luard

"Charles Edward Luard was born in Edinburgh in 1839 and was therefore eleven years older than his wife. At the time of his birth his father, Robert Luard, was a Captain in the Royal Artillery. Like many in his family, Luard was a professional soldier and had retired with the rank of Major-General in the Royal Engineers. He had done so -despite an incident during his career that might have ruined his chances of promotion. This related to the defeat of British forces by the Zulu at the battle of Isandhlwana in 1879, a reversal that was largely blamed on Colonel Anthony Durnford. However, it was rumoured that Durnford’s orders had been stolen from his body after the battle in order to absolve Lieutenant-General Frederic Augustus Thesiger, the 2nd Baron Chelmsford, and other senior officers of incompetence."

Posts : 2308 Join date : 2010-07-02 Age : 44

Good Idea Admin. Idea

Not sure if this can be verified...

Longhurst, Seaward ( - 28/10/1925)

"He qualified MRCVS (London) on 31 March 1873 and with his regiment, the first Dragoon Guards, saw service in Natal from 1879 to 1880. In his book entitled "Lord Chelmsford and the Zulu War" (John Lane the Bodley Head 1939), Major General French D.S.O. records the following sequence of incidents involving veterinarian S. Longhurst of the K.D.G.s (King Dragoon Guards).

On 21 May 1879 when the British columns revisited the battle ground of Isandhlawana for the first time after the massacre on the 22nd of January, a report was made to Miss Francis Colenso (daughter of Bishop Colenso) by Longhurst that he had seen Mr Theophilus Shepstone (son of Sir Theophilus) remove objects as well as correspondence from the dead body of Colonel Durnford. This action on the part of Shepstone smacked of concealment. At the time it was common knowledge that Miss Colenso was in love with Colonel Durnford and as he could be blamed for the unnecessary loss of life at Isandhlawana she felt that the correspondence removed from his body by Shepstone may have contained written orders which rendered Durnford blameless, and Lord Chelmsford blameworthy.

Subsequent enquiries proved that Shepstone had found no papers on Durnford's body (as it was coatless), but that his portmanteau had been handed to Miss Colenso unopened. Amongst the papers in this portmanteau was a despatch from Lord Chelmsford placing Durnford in sole command of the troops and therefore it could be assumed that he had been responsible for the massacre. It is possible therefore that Longhurst was guilty of make a false statement and that Miss Colenso in her turn was guilty of concealment.In 1880 Longhurst succeeded T.P. Gudgin as P.V.S. of the Army Veterinary Department for a few months and in turn was succeeded by J.D. Lambert. He died on 28 October 1925 at Ash"

To the Editor of the "Times" 23-1-80

"Sir
My attention has just been called to an article in your issue of yesterday-the anniversary of “Isandhlwana”.
I beg leave to point out some important inaccuracies in your short-description of the battle. The Native Horse were not supported by a company of regulars nor was such a detached company “surrounded, outnumbered, & cut-to-pieces”.
The The Native Horse moved out-2 troops to reconnoitre the hills to the left front of the camp, & 2 troops direct to the front. Colonel Durnford accompanying the latter. A company of the 24th was posted on the hills to the left of & about 1200 yards from the camp, & on the Zulu army moving unexpectedly to the attack, this company was reinforced by another, but in a few minutes the whole were ordered to retire, & did retire eventually to the spot chosen for the defensive line which was about 300 yeards in advance of the left, & extended (at a slight angle) across the (page 2)
front of the camp, which was about half a mile in extent. This spot afforded the only cover that was to be obtained; the camp as it stood being absolutely indefensible.
Captain Essex’ account of the movements of the 24th is very clear & detailed, & the report made by Colonel Black (who buried the dead of the 24th) completely disproves every accusation that a detached company was cut to pieces. The troops to appear to have been in line when drawn up for the final stand.
The concentration contemplated was not “within the camp”, where there was no possible “vantage ground’, but on rising ground to the right, where those who made the last gallant stand, covering the only line of possible retreat, fell.
The causes of the disaster were plainly (page 3) the fatal situation selected for the camp, enclosed as it was on three sides by hills in the absence of all defensive precautions, the absence of proper scouting, whereby 20,000 Zulus were enabled to approach on the 21st (their mounted scouts being actually seen on the Ngquatu sic hills by the General & Staff on that day, when it was intended on the next to make a reconnaissance in that direction),-the absence of proper communications with the camp, & neglect of warnings; & finally the recall of a force actually on the march to the relief of the attacked camp.
Over these causes of disaster the officers who fell at Isandhlwana had not control; nor can it with any justice be said that they were tempted by “contempt (page 4) for a native African soldiery” to throw away any “advantages” they possessed.
They fought under circumstances almost without parallel--did their duty- & knew how to die like British soldiers".

I am Sir your obedient servant,

Edward Durnford
Lieut Colonel

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Here we have the reprimand from Chelmsford to Durnford.

"Dear Durnford,
Unless you carry out the instructions I give you, it will be my unpleasant duty to remove you from your command, and to substitute another officer for officer for the commander of No. 2 Column. When a column is acting SEPARATELY in an enemy's country I am quite ready to give its commander every latitude, and would certainly expect him to disobey any orders he might receive from me, if information which he obtained showed that it would be injurious to the interests of the column under his command. Your neglecting to obey my instructions in the present instance has no excuse. You have simply received information in a letter from Bishop Schroeder[sic], which may or may not be true and which you have no means of verifying. If movements ordered are to be delayed because report hints at a chance of an invasion of Natal, it will be impossible for me to carry out my plan of campaign. I trust you will understand this plain speaking and not give me any further occasion to write in a style, which is distasteful to me".

Posts : 1093 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London

Lets look at the good and the bad.

Sir Henry Bulwer, Lieutenant-Governor of Natal, sketched a true picture of this man when he said:

'Colonel Durnford was a soldier of soldiers, with all his heart in his profession; keen, active-minded, indefatigable, unsparing of himself, and utterly fearless, honourable, loyal, of great kindness and goodness of heart. I speak of him as I knew him, and as all who knew him will speak of him'.

Few more to add to the list of those that worked for Durnford

Evelyn Wood
Redvers Buller.
Sir Garnet Wolseley
Prime Minister Disraeli
JA Froude
Adj General Sir Charles Ellice
Archibald Forbes
Sir Charles Dilke

Regards

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: Totally agree. Lets look at those involved and what they produced to try and take the blame off him.

I will add Charles Edward Luard court marshalled for his involvement in the campaign.

"The fight to re-establish Durnford's reputation was led by his brother, Edward Durnford, his fiancée, Miss Frances Ellen Colenso, daughter of John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal, and Charles Edward Luard. Luard made himself party to a letter writing campaign, accusing fellow officers of a conspiracy to blacken Durnford’s name. He was subsequently court martialled and censured for his actions."

I would love to see a source for that statement CTSG? Apart from Wikipedia that is.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 61 Location : UK

Nothing to do with the Durnford. But just for information purposes.

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

Just to make you aware I have merged this topic with one, that was posted a while ago, but contains information relating to this topic. No point in doubling up.

Posts : 116 Join date : 2011-06-17

90th wrote:: hi Impi.
Frances Colenso and A. Durnford weren't interred together as far as I am aware . :)
cheers 90th.

She described his death as " A sorrow beyond earthly help"
The Colenso women were formidable women.\Fanny died of TB but her sister Harrtet became an activist for teh rights of teh Zulu people and a great defender of Dinizulu against the machinations of the colonial government.
You should look up Jeff Guys View form across the River. It is a superb book that deals with the fate of the Zulu people from 1880-1900. SO many Zulu war fans tend to focus on the war and the personalities involved but tend to ignore the tragedy of the Zulu people after that. The Colenso's were great friends of the Zulus and people of principle.

Posts : 2593 Join date : 2009-04-24

Deleted Off Topic.

The Letter from: C E Luard

Dear Sir Andrew Clarke,

     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. Despatches & 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 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 same spot & 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.
     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.
     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 favourite.
      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 entrepidity 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 aquainted 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.

Source: The Sun Turned Black - Ian Knight.

Guest

Hi all

The restoration of Colonel Anthony William Durnford's Reputation ?

There is nothing to restore it did everything it took to trigger the Zulu attack and then he gave orders need to accelerate the disaster, since he was the C-in-C, he is the responsible for the disaster.

In terms of his private life, he certainly was not interested by the Zulus but by Miss Colenso Wink

Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:: Hi all

The restoration of Colonel Anthony William Durnford's Reputation ?

There is nothing to restore it did everything it took to trigger the Zulu attack and then he gave orders need to accelerate the disaster, since he was the C-in-C, he is the responsible for the disaster.

In terms of his private life, he certainly was not interested by the Zulus but by Miss Colenso

Pascal

There is a bit more to it than that Pascal!

Subject: the restoration of Col Durnfords reputation Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:19 pm

Echo tasker on that.

You want to read more about this gallant officer before you condemn him with the blame for Isandlwana.

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 27

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:: I will add Charles Edward Luard court marshalled for his involvement in the campaign.

never heard of that scratch

Guest

Hi all

Not agree and I do not understand to be defended Durnford, poor Pulleine, it would be best unraveled by himself, despite his inexperience ...

Salute

Pascal

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 27

Pulliene had over 3 hours to do something about the reports that were coming in, he did nothing.

Guest

Normal with his inexperience ...

Salute

Pascal

Normal? Inexperienced?

Pascal, would you have wished to serve under Pulleine then? The man was a Lt Col !

(I would have expected my son's cub scout akela to have put on a better show than what Pulleine did).

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 27

I've no problem with his actions once the fight started, but he did have over 3 hours to find out what was
happening in the hills. Send a better note to Lord C.

     The question of ‘who was in charge?’ and why Pulleine and Durnford acted as they did is difficult to answer, especially in the light of the Enquiry’s deliberations. The truth may never be known but additional evidence is now available which goes some way towards clarifying the situation. The whole question of Durnford’s orders has previously hinged upon the supposition that Durnford received specific orders from Chelmsford. Chelmsford reproduced, from memory, his recollection of this particular order for his official report; it is included below using Chelmsford’s exact words.

ORIGINAL TEXT

Head Quarter Camp
New Rorke’s Drift, Zululand
19 January 1879

No 3 column moves tomorrow to Insalwana (Sic) Hill and from there, as soon as possible to a spot about 10 miles nearer to the Indeni Forest.
From that point I intend to operate against the two Matyanas if they refuse to surrender.
One is in the stronghold on or near the Mhlazakazi Mountain; the other is in the Indeni Forest. Bengough ought to be ready to cross the Buffalo R. at the Gates of Natal in three days time, and ought to show himself there as soon as possible.
I have sent you an order to cross the river at Rorke's Drift tomorrow with the force you have at Vermaaks.
I shall want you to operate against the Matyanas, but will send you fresh instructions on this subject.
We shall be about 8 miles from Rorke’s Drift tomorrow.

     Chelmsford knew that the actual order had never been found and no one challenged Chelmsford’s account. In 1885, in an extraordinary twist of fate, the Commanding Officer of the Royal Engineers in Natal, Col. Lourde, heard rumours of a ‘cover up’ involving the surreptitious removal of Chelmsford’s written orders to Durnford from his (Durnford’s) body. Lourde cautiously advertised his fears in the Natal Witness newspaper and on the 25th June 1885 he received the following remarkable reply,

ORIGINAL TEXT

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

The orders were promptly delivered to Lourde. They were in two parts, the first was Chelmsford’s original order dated 19th January 1879 and it is on this order that Durnford must have based so much of his decision making when he arrived at Isandlwana. The original text is reproduced below and the order leaves little doubt what was in Chelmsford’s mind when he wrote it. It differs considerably from Chelmsford’s recollection, printed above.

ORIGINAL TEXT

  Lieut. Colonel Durnford R.E
  Camp Helpmakaar

1. You are requested to move the troops under your immediate command viz.: mounted men, rocket battery and Sikeli’s men to Rourke’s Drift tomorrow the 20th inst.; and to encamp on the left bank of the Buffalo (in Zululand).
2. No. 3 Column moves tomorrow to the Isandhlana (Sic) Hill.
3. Major Bengough with his battalion Native Contingent at Sand Spruit is to hold himself in readiness to cross the Buffalo at the shortest possible notice to operate against the chief Matyana &c. His wagons will cross at Rourke’s (Sic) Drift.
4. Information is requested as to the ford where the above battalion can best cross, so as to co-operate with No. 3 Column in clearing the country occupied by the chief Matyana.

By Order, H. Spalding. Major DAAG
Camp, Rourke’s Drift 19.1.79

     This is the penultimate order issued to Durnford (the last one being the one received on the morning of the 22nd). The text was visible in January 1963 when David Jackson copied the text, but has since disintegrated. The order makes it clear that Durnford’s column is to co-operate with column no. 3, viz. Bengough’s battalion, which is to operate from the west into the Mangeni valley; his waggons are to accompany Durnford’s men, indicating a planned rendezvous later on.
     Durnford was clearly ordered to ‘co-operate with No.3 Column by clearing the country occupied by the Chief Matyana’, he was not ordered to take command of the camp, which was only temporary. Durnford did as he was ordered; at 11.15am. the remaining two troops of Zikhali’s Horse, under the command of Lieutenants Charles Raw and J.A. Roberts, were sent under Captain Barton, who had been attached to Durnford’s column for General Duties, to the hills to the north to sweep away those thousand or so Zulus who could be seen there about two miles off. Barton accompanied Roberts, and George Shepstone, Durnford’s staff officer, went with Raw. At about 11.30am the rocket battery arrived and Durnford gave them orders to be prepared to move out of camp in fifteen minutes. At 11.45am Durnford left the camp. He took with him Lieutenant Harry Davis’s fifty-two Edendale and Lieutenant Alfred Henderson’s fifty-two BaSotho mounted men, the rocket battery under Major F. Russell supported by D Company and the 1/1st NNC under Captain Nourse. His wagons bringing his ammunition and supplies had not yet arrived, but he must have been confident that the Zulus would not stop to fight. The worst he could expect might be a short skirmish. This makes sense, as Durnford’s highly mobile No.2 Column was ideally placed to drive the Zulus away from the camp.
     Trooper A. Pearse had found these papers on the field of battle while seeking the body of another brother, also a trooper. The papers had been there for some months open to the elements and some parts were folded up in an envelope and so fragile that they could not be unfolded and read. As the papers were not referred to in contemporary writings it is reasonable to assume that they were not examined in detail at that time. The outside of the envelope and part of the first side were presumably sufficiently visible to cause the writer to state that these were Chelmsford’s instructions to Durnford. Pearse’s brother responded to the advertisement in the Natal Witness alluded to and presumably obtained permission to forward the papers to the editor of the Natal Witness.
     Ultimately an unrecorded person placed them in the R.E. Museum at Chatham at an unrecorded date. It may be surmised that Frances Ellen Colenso was responsible for their being sent to the museum. Historian David Jackson first saw the papers in 1963 still in a state in which they could not be examined. The Journal Editor then saw them in July 1998 by which time they had been painstakingly separated to reveal their contents.
     The second order found on Durnford’s body, copies of which had been sent to all the column commanders, relates to the specific tactics to be used when engaging the Zulus and is dated 23rd December 1878. Whilst they are not relevant to the argument, the fact that Durnford kept them on his person indicates his intention to obey his orders. He would still have been smarting from Chelmsford’s earlier rebuke and threatening reminder to obey future orders. (Chelmsford’s Order 43 dated 14th January 1879).
     The discovery of the ‘evidence’ he was seeking galvanised Lourde into action; he wrote a remarkable letter to Sir Andrew Clarke, Head of the Corps of Royal Engineers. His letter indicates his view that he could vindicate Durnford and the whole (unabridged and uncorrected) text is reproduced below,
Sources: Greaves

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 27

That realy doesn't make sence.

The first order quoted was from Chelmsford to Durnford. The one called the original, was from Major
Splading, there is a photo of the remains of that on the forum.

Tr Pearse didn't have a dead brother.

Guest

Hi all

If pulleine was alone, there would be no massacre, was because there would not had to battle ...

The Zulu does not want to fight on January 22.

It's Durnford which initiated the battle and thus the massacre, with the reconnaissances that he has ordered to NNH.

Pulleine Isandhlwana was quiet, until the other enraged comes mangling ....

Salute

Pascal

» Col Durnford's demise
» Brevet Colonel Anthony William Durnford, Royal Engineers, 1830-1879.
» COL. ANTHONY WILLIAM DURNFORD (1830-1879)