The same suggestion was made, of course, to Sir T. Shepstone, who replies as follows: “You have rightly assumed the concurrence of this Government, and I trust that Cetshwayo will see in your message the necessity that is laid upon him to prove that he was sincere in asking you to undertake the inquiry.” This ready acquiescence is fully accounted for by the fact, shortly apparent, that _both_ the lines mentioned by Sir Henry, between which neutrality should be observed, were within what was claimed by the Zulus as their own country, and Sir T. Shepstone says: “At present the belt of country indicated is occupied solely by Zulus. The whole of it has been apportioned in farms to Transvaal subjects, but has not been occupied by them.” Small wonder that the Zulu king, in reply to this proposal, “informs the Governor of Natal that the two roads mentioned in His Excellency’s message are both in Zululand, and therefore the king cannot see how the ground between the roads can belong to both parties.” Nevertheless Sir Henry Bulwer hardly seems to fall in with Sir T. Shepstone’s suggestion, that Cetshwayo’s consent on this point should be looked upon as a test of his sincerity: “Either,” he says (2100, p. 73), “he has misunderstood the real nature of the proposal, or he is disinclined to accept anything which may in his opinion be taken to signify a withdrawal of one iota of his claim.” And, in point of fact, though no “neutral ground” was marked off, the Commission went on just as well without it; all the apprehensions of disturbance and disorder having been falsified by the event. Sir T. Shepstone repeatedly speaks of the border Boers having been forced by Zulu acts and threats of aggression to abandon their farms and go into laager, etc. etc.; but, on investigation, it is apparent that this abandonment of farms, and trekking into laager, took place in consequence of an intimation from the Landrost of Utrecht, under instructions from Sir T. Shepstone himself; as appears from the following passages of an address from seventy-nine Boers, protesting against arbitration as “an absurdity and an impossibility,” which was presented to Sir T. Shepstone on February 2nd, 1878 (2079, p. 140):