This is apparently all. There is no attempt to make a serious national matter of it; no demand for the surrender of the offenders, nor for the payment of a fine. Nor is there even a warning that any future occurrence of the same description will be viewed in a more severe light. Sir Henry “informs” Cetshwayo of what has taken place, and Cetshwayo politely acknowledges the information, and that the action taken by his people deserves censure. “I do not send and take by force,” he says; “why should my people do so? It is not right.” Eighteen months later, on July 28th, 1878, a similar case was reported. A wife of the chief Sihayo had left him and escaped into Natal. She was followed by a party of Zulus, under Mehlokazulu, the chief son of Sihayo, and his brother, seized at the kraal where she had taken refuge, and carried back to Zululand, where she was put to death, in accordance with Zulu law. The Zulus who seized her did no harm to Natal people or property; in fact their only fault towards England was that of following and seizing her on Natal soil, an act which for many years, and until quite lately, they would have been permitted to do, and assisted in doing, by the border Government officials. A week later the same young men, with two other brothers and an uncle, captured in like manner another refugee wife of Sihayo, in the company of the young man with whom she had fled. This woman was also carried back, and is supposed to have been put to death likewise; the young man with her, although guilty in Zulu eyes of a most heinous crime, punishable with death, was safe from them on English soil—they did not touch him. But by our own practice for years past, of surrendering _female_ refugees as _property_, we had taught the Zulus that we regarded women as cattle. While fully acknowledging the savagery of the young men’s actions, and the necessity of putting a stop to such for the future, it must be conceded that, having so long countenanced the like, we should have given fair notice that, for the future, it would be an act of aggression on us for a refugee of either sex to be followed into our territory, before proceeding to stronger measures. Sir Henry Bulwer, indeed, though taking a decided view of the young men’s offence, plainly understood that it was an individual fault, and not a political action for the performance of which the king was responsible. “There is no reason whatsoever as yet to believe that these acts have been committed with the consent or knowledge of the king,”[89] he says (2220, p. 125), and his message to Cetshwayo merely _requests_ that he will send in the ringleaders of the party to be tried by the law of the colony.