rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - REGINALD BRETT (LATER 2nd VISCOUNT ESHER)

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:43 pm

Whilst scratching around looking for material on how this war was initiated and viewed from London, I found these interesting snippets in the Journals of Reginald Brett, edited for publication in 1934 by Maurice V Brett. Reginald Brett was very well connected socially and politically and from an early age had access to key figures in the upper tiers of the Victorian establishment.

From his Journal, annotated London, February 11th:

"There is sad news this morning from Africa. Owing apparently to great carelessness a convoy of our people was surprised by Zulus and after a desparate resistance was utterly annihilated. The 24th Regiment with all its officers is cut to pieces, colours captured, artillery, rifles, ammunition and stores. I have no heart to work to-day"

Reginald Brett was then Private Secretary to Lord Hartington (until 1885). Hartington had previously been Under Secretary at the War Department in 1878, but was not in government at the time the journal was written. We are left wondering how the information was being distributed on these dates, but there is no doubt some easy explanation.

Part way through his journal entry for March 4th, and again in London, Brett includes:

"Lord Chelmsford's despatch has arrived. ......The most ordinary precautions appear to have been neglected. They have recovered the colours of the 24th Regiment, which were supposed to have been lost. They were found wrapped round the body of Lieutenant Melville (sic), on the Natal side of the river. He, together with a brother officer Coghill, had cut their way through the enemy, and crossed the river, but succumbed from the effects of their wounds. The Pall Mall (Gazette) publishes an article attacking Lord Chelmsford. There is not much to be gained by that."

Again, at Panshanger on June 7th, the journal includes:

"Henry Calcraft (PUS at the Board of Trade) told us today that Dizzy has, for three months, wished to send Wolseley to the Cape. But he was over-ruled by the Cabinet....."

All tantalising stuff, but leaving us not greatly the wiser. Any ideas?

G

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:27 pm

G

Interesting. As far as I know, on 11th Feb they only had Lord C's despatch (via ship then telegraph) to go on, did they not, plus any premature comment accompanying the news in The Times or Telegraph of that morning? His access to those in government circles brought links only with speculation, surely? Lord C had not yet gone into quite so much detail, at least as far as the cause or any culpability (including his). Haven't time to look now but was the loss of the Colour mentioned so early, i.e. in Lord C's bald original despatch? I hadn't thought so.

The myths about the Colour's recovery are not that surprising as the rumours were already about, and even military tradition pointed to that as a possibility. The papers - Times, Telegraph (which I haven't seen) & Guardian (not the M/C G'n) were full of such rumours, speculation, innuendo & debate on the causes and the culpability by that time, as was Hansard & society generally. One row over the Duke and Lord C went on for weeks.

I have my doubts as to whether his 11 Jan (sorry, Feb!)entry was actually made on that day.

Peter

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:42 pm

Other journal entries for February 8th and 14th are also quoted though contain no material of specific interest to us here, both whilst in London, and there will most probably be others in the gaps that were not thought of sufficient interest by the compiler.

I would therefore think that a February 11th journal entry is accurately dated, remembering that only in the March 4th entry do we find reference to a Chelmsford despatch as having arrived. The rest of his entry for that date is pretty much clubland stuff, and it's the reference to essentially factually accurate stuff on 11th February that is the more interesting one I feel. It is just possible that Hartington was extended some sort of privileged information under Privy Council terms.

Brett sometimes catches up on the weekend events in his journal early the next week, but only if very occupied socially. Generally his diary entries are diligent and regular.

G

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:43 pm

Chelmsford's famous telegram is dated Pietermaritzburg, 27 January 1879, and was introduced by Sir Bartle Frere: 'Lord Chelmsford wishes the following to be sent to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for War'. According to the printed version, it was received in London on 15 February (BPP C. 2262, p. 33f. No. 14: Frere to Hicks Beach).

A copy is also in TNA WO 32/7706, in which it is headed 'Telegram (dated St Vincent 10th 6-40 p.m.) (Received Colonial Office 10th midnight). One must wonder what happened between the 11th and 15th February, apart from Brett's reading it almost immediately after it was received.

KIS

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:06 pm

Gallo & Keith

The news was definitely out on the 12th Feb, if not the 11th. (Those with ready access to the right people on the 11th, the newspapers on the 12th at latest). Look at Dawnay's account of his hearing the news when he came down to breakfast in Yorkshire on Wed 12th - assuming his memory or his diary was accurate. (Of course, his family, too, was hardly without excellent connections, so it is not impossible he heard earlier than the general public, but I think this unlikely. He journeyed to London & back and, like others, was by the 15th hurriedly making plans to get out to SA. (Dawnay, p1).

But Lord C mentioned nothing about lost Colours. (Just checked). Did Frere's covering letter do so? If it didn't, then no-one in England yet knew of any lost Colour, surely? If Frere didn't mention the Colour, Brett's diary entry must have been entered retrospectively. Or have I missed something? Anyone got Frere's full note to hand?

Peter

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:32 am

News about Isandlwana may have reached Britain on Tuesday 11th; unless I am mistaken, Chelmsford�s despatch was from St. Vincent, February 10, 6.40 p.m. (�I regret to have to report a very disastrous engagement ...). The following is taken from the North Wales Express on 14.2.'79, and is obviously lifted from another newspaper:

"[...] The defeat caused the utmost consternation throughout the colony, a consternation which was no doubt intensified by the fact that there are supposed to be 300,000 Zulus living in our territory. Natal was considered to be in great danger; an uprising of native populations in other parts was feared; and the mail departed a day earlier on account of the urgency of the case, bringing a request from Lord Chelmsford for immediate reinforcements, to the extent of six regiments of infantry and a brigade of cavalry [�]

The terrible intelligence received on Tuesday morning woke up Pall Mall and Whitehall with a start; and before noon had struck a posse of generals were holding a council of war in Pall Mall, and her Majesty�s Ministers were concerting measures at Whitehall. A Cabinet Council, called together by electric telegraph, met at two o�clock. The proceedings of the Cabinet Council lasted an hour, the discussion being confined to the one topic of the war. At the close the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary for War were detained, to have private conversation with the Premier. The Press Association has been furnished with the following official information of the results of the deliberations of her Majesty�s Ministers:�Reinforcements, in consequence of the urgency of Lord Chelmsford�s telegram, were agreed to be despatched, and Government showed their appreciation of the state of affairs by granting to his Lordship a larger number of additional troops than he had asked for. It was decided to send two regiments of cavalry, six battalions of infantry, two batteries of artillery, and one company of the Royal Engineers. That there shall be no break-down in the commissariat arrangements, the Army Service Corps already in the field is to be strengthened by three companies of the Army Service Corps, and, in addition, a company of the Army Hospital Corps is to be despatched. [...]"

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:59 am

Just to clarify:

Lord C's despatch didn't mention the loss of any Colours but Brett appears aware of the loss on the 11th, only hours after the receipt. As he is aware of the loss of everything in the camp ("2 guns, 2 rocket tubes" ..."supplies, ammunition & transport") it may be he was assuming the Colour was in the camp and lost. A strange assumption, or not? But if his entry was entered retrospectively - not unknown in journals - then he could have been aware. But not with any certainty whatsoever on the 11th Feb, any more than he can have had any idea of the "great carelessness" he mentions, although he might have inferred this from Lord C's "It would seem that the troops were enticed away from their camp, as the action took place about one mile and a quarter outside it..."

I'm not really surprised that he knew of the disaster so quickly. It would have spread like wildfire among certain London circles, even outside the immediate government or WO departments. He only had to be in touch with momentarily - or even bump into - any single one of his contacts who had just heard the news at any time from the early hours onwards. His "great carelessness" remark might simply have reflected the immediate gossip, as also might the presumed loss of the Colour. But unless Frere had mentioned it (was there a covering note, Keith, or just that introductory sentence?) then he couldn't have known for certain. I'm also assuming that the other despatch sent by Lord C on 27th, and referred to in the one above, went entirely by sea or, if also telegraphed from St Vincent, went by a later boat.

I know I can lay my hands on the dates of all the despatches and dates of receipt somewhere here, but don't have time at the moment. Gallo, is your main query the actual access Brett had to the info so quickly, while out of government? Or his views at such an early time?

Peter

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:11 am

Paul

I see we were posting almost sumultaneously. Your piece confirms that all & sundry (in certain circles) in London were aware during the 11th - it would almost be surprising if Brett had not been aware.

If Brett's entry of the 11th was entered on that day, I'd take it that he was already recording rumours emanating from gossip & assumptions, especially about the Colour.

Peter

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:17 am

Plus, of course, back then people could both post letters and receive replies on the same day. Not to mention the wonderful "electric telegraph" ...

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:50 am

An apology, gentlemen. In error, I earlier quoted Chelmsford's telegram as appearing in the Parliamentary Paper C. 2262. It should, of course, be C. 2242. Frere's contribution was just one sentence: 'Lord Chelmsford wishes the following to be sent to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for War'.

Chelmsford's written report was dated 14 January but again did not mention the loss of the Colours. (BPP C. 2242, Enclosure 8 in No. 20, p. 46ff.)

KIS

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:40 pm

And my apologies to you, Keith: I note that you had already given the date and time of the St Vincent despatch prior to my post.

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:53 pm

This does lead us on to the possibility that Lord Chelmsford reporting back to the War Department was possibly not the only reporting stream from South Africa, with the Colonial Office and the India Office being other possible information paths. I was once told by an old FCO hand in the 1960s that the India Office had still maintained a small civil liaison staff at the Cape until well into the 1890s, even after the Suez Canal opened, so as to address issue affecting the two-way mercantile trade and the Indian Merchant Navy. Also, and as force generation for the Army Corps in 1899 indicated, there were still reinforcement options for the Indian Army along the East coast of Africa and some of the Atlantic territories.

It does though beg the interesting question of exactly how these messages were passed - by whom, by what routing, by what time waypoints - and at what stage they were encrypted for telegraphic transmission. As did Lord Roberts in the contemporary Afghanistan campaign, Lord Chelmsford would also very probably have had a Royal Engineer 'Confidential Clerk' somewhere in his South African Field Force command and staff structure whose duties included ensuring that encoded traffic was properly formatted prior to onwards transmission. Actual encoding might have been done in the same way, but was usually a shared responsibility with a designated officer. Higher level traffic would usually be encoded twice whenever it was sufficiewntly highly classified material not to be seen by anybody other than a small list of authorised persons.

G

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:16 pm

G

Yes, it would be easy to fall into the trap of assuming the only messages - letters, telegrams, reports etc - which can tell us anything important are those which we already know about, but of course any number of well placed officers or civilans in Natal & Zululand would have written home to family, friends and confidants - although none had the opportunity to beat Lord C with the first message - and some of these may yet, even now, come out of the woodwork. Even if they don't, they may well have informed certain opinions, rumours or gossip of the time.

Lord C's tortuous route back to PMB meant his initial despatch was delayed until the 27th. Undoubtedly other (private) letters soon followed from Natal, and within a week or two, when conditions permitted, from Zululand, as we all know. But presumably very few, if any, made part of their journey by telegaph, other than Lord C's. Presumably his Staff, if writing home privately, kept their counsel, or at least stuck to the "party line" But who else in PMB, for example, might have confided in all sorts of contacts in GB? Frere? Lady Frere? The latter certainly did. But, again, it would have been some days, at least, before anyone could have got a message from SA to GB faster then the General. Just Frere, his staff & Lady Frere, I suppose.

Then there were the newspapers! Those in Natal & GB all carried unattributed reports, claims, stories & rumours, constantly mixed in with the "factual" reports, invariably from "an officer in the field" or "one whose word can be relied upon" as they always put it. They certainly succeeded in muddying the water. Members in the Lords and Commons were also fed this stuff privately, as the debates demonstrate.

I'd be intrigued to know which letter had arrived in London by 11th Feb and mentioned the loss of the Colour, but I suppose it is of little import overall, other than raising a slight question mark over Brett's journal entries.

Peter

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:16 am

Well versed as I am in the notion of an "inconvenient fact" there is no particular reason to assume that the Brett February 11th journal entry is erroneous, by content or date, though the two volume edition of his "Journals & Letters" correspondence and journals is by its very nature a secondary source and an independent check of the primary source would obviously create greater assurance. The Esher Papers are held in one of the Oxbridge Colleges if anybody is feeling very keen.

It does behove us to think through the nuts and bolts of how information was communicated rearwards from Natal and the Cape since it would at least let us appreciate the various lead-lag effects of official and media treatments of the two way flow of information. Interesting though that the idea of replacing Lord Chelmsford was receiving Prime Ministerial and Cabinet level consideration so early. And Brett's view on the likely effects of criticising Chelmsford. The extracts do not feature any further mentions of the Zulu War and also make only passing mention of the 1880-81 Boer War whilst making frequent references to various forms of social tittle tattle. From a historical viewpoint its not a very useful compilation even when dealing with Esher's later role in various early 20th century committees.
But the source pieces might still deliver up a few nuggets.

G

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:31 am

For 'keenies' only, I fear, and a dead end by itself:

http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?I'd=EAD%2FGBR%2F0014%2FESHR

G