A BRITISH OFFICER CHARGED WITH COWARDICE.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 142, 30 July 1880, Page 1 (Supplement)

A BRITISH OFFICER CHARGED WITH COWARDICE.

The ‘ Times’ learns from the Cape that a general court-martial assembled at Petermaritzburg, Natal, on the 20th of February, for the trial of Lieutenant H. Harward of bho SOtli regiment, with reference to the disaster which occurred to a detachment of that corps at the Intombi river, on the 12th of March, 1870, when Captain Moriarty and a considerable number of men lost their lives. Two charges were preferred against Lieutenant Harward. The first was for misbehaviour before the enemy, in shamefully abandoning a party of the 80th Regiment under his command when attacked by Zulus, and riding off at lull speed from his men. The second charge alleged conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, in having neglected to take proper precautions for the safety of the party. Lieutenant Harward pleaded not guilty. The witnesses consisted of Sergeant Booth and several men of the SOth Regimen*-, who formed part of the detachment. It appeared from the evidence that on the night of the 11th of March a company of the 80th —about 100 men were encamped on the river. The greater portion of them were on the left or Derby bank, under Captain Moriarty, and the remainder some 40 men, in a position facing their comrades, were on the right or Luneberg bank, under Lieutenant Harward At about five in the morning of the 12th a force of Zulus, estimated at 4000 in number attacked aud speedily overcame Captain Moriarty’s men on the left bank of the Intombi. This party was at once almost annihilated ; a few attempted to escape, some naked and unarmed, across the river. On the left bank there was a hand-to-hand conflict, and most of those attempting to escape were assegaieil in the river, and the Zulus l>«s;an crossing in numbers. On the right bank the orders had been to assemble at the provision waggon. When the alarm was given some nine men so assembled under Sergeant Booth, who commenced fining, with the view of covering the retreat of their comrades coining from the left bank of the river. Lieut. Harward came from his tent with a saddle and saddled his horse, gave a command to one of the men to retire on the mission station some four hundred yards distant, and told him that ho was going oil to Luneberg for reinforcements. He accordingly gallopocl off. The sergeant swore he did not think that if Lieutenant Harward had rcmainced more effectual help would have been given, or that the retreat would have been more orderly or soldierlike. 1-Ie could not say if his departure influenced the men on leaving. The witness stated that so long as lie remained after the alarm he was cool and collected in manner. The fact of Lieut. Harward galloping away was not in dispute, and his defence rested upon the theory that in doing so he acted in a manner not only not open to blame, but deserving credit for good judgment and care for the party. His was the onl> horse with the party ; he was, as far as he knew the only person who could ride; the main body on the other side had been annihilated ; his own men, excepting the nine who rallied with Sergeant Booth, were scattered ; he knew that the Zulus were adepts in the art of signalling the movements of our troops, and his idea was that their seeing him riding off for reinforcements, would have the effect of deterring them from pursuit. Lieutenant Hardward repudiated the imputation of misbehaviour, and rather claimed credit for having aoted with good judgment and for the interests of the party. He oomplained much of the comments of Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons and of some of the newspapers at home ; and it appeared that Lord Chelmsford, in his despatch relating to the disaster, had described him as having done his utmost. The court-martial adopted Lieutenant Harward’s view, and acquitted him. Sir Garnet Wolseley disapproved the proceedings, but ordered him to return to his duty.