Rorke's Drift

by Adrian Greaves

  Roll of all ranks, in manuscript, who were at Rorke’s Drift (original and duplicate) from Mrs. Cantwell, 1935.

  The hitherto unheard of duplicate was displayed in the officers’ mess at Brecon. On examination it proved to be a photograph of the original roll and therefore was an exact duplicate of the one exhibited in the museum. The roll’s wooden frame bore a silver plaque on which was inscribed:

  Copy of Lieutenant Chard’s Roll of Officers, NCOs and Men Present at Rorke’s Drift dated 3/2/1879. The original, which was presented to the Regiment by the Widow of Bombardier Cantwell, Royal Artillery through the Durban Light Infantry Comrades Association, is in the Regimental Museum at Brecon.

  The fact that the documents had been presented in 1935, although no precise month was indicated, offered two possible solutions as to the reason why Professor Atkinson included the roll in his book, but failed to refer to it in the text. At that time the work must have been nearing completion, therefore it may have been difficult for Atkinson to insert retrospective comments appropriate to the roll. Alternatively, being aware of the source from which the roll came, Atkinson may have decided to refrain from an explanation of the matter.

  It is an undeniable fact that Bombardier (Gunner) John Cantwell, RA, was present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift, as he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for that action. He is noted in Chard’s roll as ‘Wounded’ but there is no evidence whatsoever to support this statement. Cantwell’s service documents reveal the following:

  John Cantwell was born at St James’s,Dublin, Ireland; he was by trade a servant. He enlisted in the 9th Regiment of Foot on the 6th November 1868 and gave his age as twenty-three years 6 months. Cantwell transferred to the Royal Artillery on 1st April 1872 and joined N Battery, 5th Brigade on 1st July 1877. Having served at St. Helena, he arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on 9th January 1878, and subsequently took part in the advance into Zululand. Promoted Bombardier Wheeler on 29th July 1878, he reverted to Gunner on 21st January 1879. [Therefore, at the defence of Rorke’s Drift his correct rank was that of Gunner.] Cantwell, his wife and daughter, returned to England on 31st March 1879 (P.E. Abbott ‘N Bty, 5th Bde, RA, at Isandlwana’, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. LVI.) Discharged at Woolwich on 19th July 1887 as medically unfit for further service. Intended place of residence: 8 Loop St. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Awarded the DCM for Rorke’s Drift (Submitted to the Queen, 11/2/1880. RA Regimental Order No. 29, April 1880); South Africa Medal with clasp 1877–8–9; Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.

  The Rorke’s Drift roll of defenders, apparently authenticated by Chard’s signature and correctly addressed to Colonel Glyn, was regarded by many as being an official document. The discovery that Cantwell, or to be more precise his widow, Caroline Margaret Cantwell, had been instrumental in providing the regimental museum with copies of the roll posed a question as to how the document had come into John Cantwell’s possession. Consequently, in the belief that Chard’s roll held by the regimental museum was a copy of an original official document, Holme commenced by endeavouring to establish the whereabouts of Chard’s original roll. Though he was in possession of copies of the official correspondence relating to the Zulu War, Holme could find no written request for the submission of a list of names of those present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift; Chelmsford had indeed made written requests, but these were not known to Holme at the time of his research.

  Logic dictated that the Public Record Office (PRO) was the obvious repository for such a document. Accordingly Holme engaged three professional researchers (Mr Geoffrey Keay, Mrs Kay Twyman-Musgrave and Lieutenant Commander Michael Godfrey – the latter two were former members of staff at the Public Record Office), each working independently, to undertake the necessary work. After a lengthy interval of time, Holme received assurances that the roll was not to be found in the PRO. This fact having been established, further investigations were undertaken at the former Colonial Office, the regimental museum of the Royal Engineers, the War Office Library, the National Army Museum and the Royal Archives, but without success. A copy of the roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders was finally located at the British Museum Library, but significantly this transpired to be Bourne’s roll. Nothing was known of Chard’s roll, therefore assistance was sought from the descendants of Lieutenant Chard. Lieutenant Colonel W.W.M. Chard and Mrs D. Phillips, who actually possessed living memories of John Rouse Merriott Chard, very kindly responded to Holme’s request and searched through the papers formerly belonging to their forebear. There was neither trace nor mention of the Rorke’s Drift roll.

  As a result of these protracted investigations it was evident that the location of the original Chard roll was unknown. In consequence of this fact Holme again scrutinized the roll contained in the regimental museum. After some time he was able to formulate a number of conclusions regarding the document. To his untrained eye the manuscript appeared to consist of two distinctive styles of handwriting. The names of the garrison, with three notable exceptions, seemed to have been written in a conventional hand. A more ornate style was employed in the heading and sub-headings, and also in respect of the names of ‘Lieutenant Chard (In Command),’ ‘Lieutenant Bromhead (Com’d B Comp)’ and ‘Bomb J. Cantwell.’ These three names, and no others, were made more distinctive by being underlined.

  It became increasingly evident to Holme that the roll and duplicate copy in the possession of the regimental museum represented the only known examples attributed to Chard. The number and significance of the various anomalies associated with the document aroused Holme’s suspicions, regarding not only the authenticity but also the accuracy of the information on the roll. In view of the documents having originated from Cantwell’s widow, it became a matter of necessity to confirm whether or not Chard had approved and signed the roll bearing his name. Mr Derek Davis, a well-known expert in forensic handwriting, most generously agreed to undertake an analysis of the roll. An authenticated sample of Chard’s handwriting, including his signature, together with a photocopy of the Rorke’s Drift roll was submitted. Holme considered the possibility that Lieutenant Bromhead may have been responsible for compiling the roll; accordingly, an authenticated sample of his handwriting was also submitted. Unfortunately Holme did not possess an example of Bombardier Cantwell’s handwriting. Precise information and specific instructions regarding the work were submitted as follows:

  Written instructions to examine photostat copies of historical documents relating to the defence of Rorke’s Drift.To compare the handwriting on these documents and offer opinions as to authorship.

  In due course Mr Davis produced a comprehensive report in which he stated:

  The handwriting in each document was examined and notes made of the personal handwriting habits, tendencies and formation found. Examination of all notes allowed opinions to be formed as to specific authorship of the documents. In my considered opinion, one person wrote the whole of the Roll, including the headings and the signature of Lieutenant Chard. This includes the names that visually appear to be a different writing. The only clue that I can offer as to the production of the roll is that it is possible that a man from the 2/24th Regiment produced it – Due to the use of first names in that regiment. The only name that shows as carefully written is that of Private Michael Kiley, although this may be coincidence. The numbers of the men are mentioned in the 1st and 2/24th Regiment, but omitted from others.

  As a result of the conclusions contained in the report, it is obvious that Chard did not sign the document; neither did Bromhead contribute to any part of the roll. Holme’s attention was then given to the right-hand portion of the document that contains a return enumerating the strength and composition of the garrison, together with notes referring to those killed, wounded and died of wounds. This information, with the figures slightly amended, was contained in Chard’s dispatch dated ‘25th Jan 1879’ and correctly addressed to ‘Colonel Glyn, CB.’ It was evident that this was the only part of
the roll of defenders that had been transmitted to higher authority. Assuming that Chard had ordered that the information be obtained for inclusion within his dispatch, then the person undertaking the task would presumably have first compiled a list of names, subdivided into regiments and corps etc. It would then have become a comparatively simple matter to extract the required information that could then have been presented in numerical form. The evidence for this is contained in the fact that each name appearing on the roll is numbered sequentially from ‘1’ to ‘141’ representing the figure given as the total strength of the garrison. It is a matter of conjecture as to the identity of the man who actually compiled the roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders. Whoever this person was, he, for some unknown reason, provided Cantwell with a high degree of prominence in the roll, perhaps in the knowledge that once having been used for its intended purpose, the document would then become no longer of use. Further examination of the roll reveals it not to be a hastily scribbled note, rather is it a work bordering on draughtsmanship. The layout as a whole is neat, and the surrounding lining with its bastion shaped corners obviously took some time and care to execute. A difficult accomplishment given the acute shortage of writing paper and the conditions prevailing at Rorke’s Drift during the seven days between the battle and the date attributed to the compilation of Chard’s roll. Whatever the correct date for the compilation of the roll is, it pre-dates 29 April 1880, the date on which the DCM awarded to Cantwell was promulgated in Royal Artillery Regimental Orders.2 Furthermore, the roll contains no mention of any of the other decorations awarded to certain members of the garrison.

  During the course of Holme’s research it was decided that the Rorke’s Drift roll should be examined for traces of a watermark, thus establishing the date of manufacture of the paper on which it was written. Unfortunately, on Holme’s pursuing the matter at the regimental museum, it was found that the roll was pasted to a cardboard backing and could not be removed. No doubt modern scientific methods could help establish the precise type and age of adhesive used, but the process in removing the roll could have resulted in damage to the document, therefore the matter had to be left in abeyance. In more recent times a professional paper restorer has examined the document. He concluded that the paper on which the roll is written was ‘machine manufactured circa 1880’, therefore it would be devoid of watermarks. In addition, the paper on which the original roll was written exhibited crease marks, thus indicating that the document had been subjected to folding. The crease marks were not visible on the photograph of the roll. It is impossible to determine the sources from which the roll was compiled. As previously stated, Colour Sergeant Bourne does not appear to have been involved in the compilation of the roll insofar as B company was concerned. It was Holme’s personal opinion that the degree of authority attributed to Chard’s roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders is not supported by the evidence as described in the foregoing.

  The list of defenders compiled by Major Bourne, as he then was, was totally unrelated to Chard’s roll; therefore it represented an independent means of verifying a portion of the information contained in the latter document. Holme considered that the individuals named in both rolls were present at the action; however, the numerous instances of names appearing on one roll but not on the other constituted a series of anomalies. During the course of his investigations a fortunate coincidence revealed the whereabouts of Mrs Mary Frances Whitby, youngest daughter of Frank Bourne. Major Egerton of the regimental museum kindly provided the necessary assistance in communicating with Mrs Whitby, and as a result Holme was able to obtain from her a considerable amount of valuable and hitherto unknown information. The most important single aspect to emerge from this information was the fact that Frank Bourne had amended his personal copy of the roll previously compiled by himself. These amendments had been undertaken after the publication of Atkinson’s book containing the ‘Chard’ roll. An examination of Bourne’s amended roll revealed that the work was in Bourne’s handwriting, as confirmed by Mrs Whitby, and each name had been examined and duly marked by Bourne, thus signifying his obvious agreement. Furthermore, Bourne had added most but not all the names previously omitted from his original roll. His failure to include certain individuals from Chard’s roll disclosed his obvious lack of agreement regarding their presence at the action. Of equal significance was the fact that Bourne had not deleted one single name from his original roll, and there are indications that in part this may have been justified. For example, Chard’s roll fails to include 1005 Private John Smith, who, according to his service papers, was undeniably present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift. In view of the amendment undertaken by Bourne it was considered that there existed a closer relationship between his amended roll and Chard’s roll. This provided a greater degree of confirmation in respect of the majority of individuals named in both documents. At least four men belonging to B Company were killed in action at Isandlwana. Two men who served in B Company at the defence of Rorke’s Drift had items of equipment lost, and in one case later recovered, at Isandlwana. It is not unusual to discover items of field equipment at one camp whilst the owners of the material are elsewhere. This may indicate that the men concerned were by chance present at Rorke’s Drift at the time of the Zulu attack. At the time in question B Company appears to have been a somewhat fragmented unit. It is possible that this factor, plus the passage of time in compiling the roll, contributed to the errors and omissions in Bourne’s original roll. The importance of the amendments undertaken by Lieutenant Colonel Bourne is contained in the fact that Chard’s roll had finally been examined by a known and extremely well qualified authority.

  During the later stages of the investigation, F.W. David Jackson brought to Holme’s attention the existence of yet another roll of Rorke’s Drift defenders. This roll, signed by Lieutenant Colonel Dunbar, appeared in the Natal Colonist dated 15 January 1880. Having obtained a photocopy of the newspaper, Holme discovered that the roll had been specially prepared in connection with the ‘Presentation of an Address by the Mayor of Durban’, a copy of which was given to individual soldiers. This roll of defenders appeared to be based on Chard’s roll and Holme concluded that the unknown compiler of the latter was likely to have been present with the battalion, or, alternatively, he had provided the information for Dunbar. Lieutenant Colonel Dunbar, who was then commanding the 2/24th, had signed the list of defenders that related exclusively to the survivors of B Company. No mention was made of the soldiers belonging to the 1/24th. Similarly the men who had served in other regiments and corps, both Imperial and Colonial, were likewise excluded. The honour conferred by the mayor and people of Durban was somewhat unfairly reserved for members of B Company.

  After assessing the rolls of Rorke’s Drift defenders, and taking into consideration not only the contents but also the evidence regarding the source of each document, Holme saw no reason to amend his former evaluation of those present at the action. As previously stated, this evaluation was based on a provisional acceptance of all the names appearing on the various rolls, research then being undertaken in each individual case. Very few soldiers’ records of service refer specifically to the defence of Rorke’s Drift, therefore alternative documentary sources have been utilized. In addition to the pay rolls, muster rolls, casualty lists and effects rolls, these included reports, official and otherwise, together with various reports, letters and narratives relating to the battle. The results of this work indicated that a number of individuals named in one or more of the original rolls were not present at the defence of Rorke’s Drift, and in consequence their names have been omitted from Holme’s roll. In certain instances, where entries in service documents have obviously been confused, there must remain an element of doubt and notes applicable to the cases have been included.

  CHAPTER 15

  The Rorke’s Drift Medal Citations

  With regard to the first awards of Zulu War Victoria Crosses, the London Gazette citations of 2 May 1879 read:

  The
Queen has been graciously pleased to signify her intention to confer the decoration of the Victoria Cross on the under mentioned Officers and Soldiers of Her Majesty’s Army, whose claims have been submitted for Her Majesty’s approval, for their gallant conduct in the defence of Rorke’s Drift, on the occasion of the attack by the Zulus, as recorded against their names.

  LIEUTENANT JOHN ROUSE MERRIOTT CHARD,

  5th Company Royal Engineers

  LIEUTENANT GONVILLE BROMHEAD,

  24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment

  These two officers’ names are forever linked together in one of the greatest feats of the British Army, the defence of Rorke’s Drift.

  The mission station by the west bank of the Buffalo river was taken over by the military as a commissariat stores and hospital and it was from there that Chelmsford’s invasion force crossed into Zululand. On the morning of 22 January 1879, having been left behind at Rorke’s Drift and without clear orders, Lieutenant Chard and his four sappers rode to the camp at Isandlwana to obtain clarification of their duties. Chard’s personal orders were to return to Rorke’s Drift and keep the ferry ponts in working order and to mount guard over them. As he left Isandlwana he noticed a large force of Zulus gathering in the distant hills. Chard was probably the last man to leave Isandlwana before the Zulus overwhelmed the camp.

  On his return to Rorke’s Drift Chard reported to Major Spalding, the commander, and related what he had seen at Isandlwana; furthermore, he expressed his concern that in the event of an attack he would be unable to defend the ponts until the replacement troops arrived. The company that had been detailed for this defence were several days overdue, so Spalding decided to ride to Helpmekaar to hurry things along. Before he rode off he gave command of the camp to Chard.