Owing to the fact that neither McKenzie nor Leuchars had met with any opposition whatever when dealing, as has been seen, promptly and effectively with all cases of disaffection that came to their notice, it was, by the end of March, generally supposed that all further trouble was at an end, at any rate, for the time being. This conviction was strengthened by the execution of the murderers of Hunt and Armstrong. This execution, however, proved to be not the end, but only the end of the first phase of the Insurrection. How far the Trewirgie affair can be associated with what was taking place in Mpanza valley is for the reader to judge, after consideration of the facts that will be laid before him. To understand it, it is necessary to examine the character and antecedents of the man who, on the 4th of April, became the initiator of the second and far more vigorous phase of the Rebellion. This is all the more necessary, not only because the Natives generally refer to it as _his_ Rebellion,[128] but because he was the Chief of a comparatively small, low-class tribe and almost unknown, either by Europeans or Natives, beyond the division in which he lived. The rôle he took on was one which a far more imposing man like Mehlokazulu (of Zulu War fame), or even Zibebu (had he been living),[129] might have been proud to assume, had opportunity favourable for so hazardous an enterprise presented itself. Indeed, the general belief of the Natives of Natal and Zululand in regard to the poll tax was that, if there was to be any overt action at all, Dinuzulu himself would take it as head of the Zulu House. But for his imprisonment and banishment to St. Helena, it is quite possible he would have taken it. As he failed, or at any rate preferred to remain in the background, it fell, of all Chiefs in this portion of South Africa, on one Bambata to step forward as protagonist on this unique and dramatic occasion. As a section of the Native public appeared desirous of a change in the way in which they were being governed, it devolved, of course, on some one to take the lead. Who should this be? A Chief? Of course, for, in a matter such as this, it would be altogether foreign to Native sentiment for a mere commoner to do so. Look how Makanda and Mjongo had failed. What Chief, then, so far forgetful of his own interests, as well as of those of his tribe, would dare to translate into action the spirit of resistance innate in the people? Who, in short, would have the temerity to start an insurrection against a Government which, however much it might be regarded as oppressive, had yet, as Bambata well knew, delivered his ancestors, and those of a million other Natives, from the wrongs, cruelties and inhumanity of Tshaka and Dingana, and enabled every man, woman and child to sleep peacefully in their homes for upwards of two generations, undisturbed by death-dealing, predatory raids?