The _whole_ of the disputed territory had been apportioned in farms to Transvaal subjects, and without doubt every one of these farms would immediately be claimed, since their value would be immensely raised by the fact that in future they would be held “under British guarantee.” Therefore, to thus maintain the farmers upon them without regard to the wishes of the Zulu king and nation was simply to take away piecemeal with one hand what had just been given as a whole with the other. This “memorandum” was hailed with triumph by some of the colonial papers, and the news that, after all, the Zulus were to get no solid satisfaction from the award, soon circulated amongst all classes, not excluding the Zulus themselves. It was upon this subject that the “Correspondence” between Sir Bartle Frere and the Bishop of Natal, already referred to, commenced. In December, 1878, the High Commissioner was good enough to invite the Bishop, both by message and personally, to “criticise” his policy towards the Zulus. The invitation, indeed, came far too late for any arguments or information, which the Bishop might be able to afford, to be of the very slightest use. However, the High Commissioner desired criticism, and received it in a series of letters, which—except the last two, withheld for some reason best known to himself—were published, with Sir B. Frere’s replies, in the Blue-books. The Bishop pointed out that, under the interpretation of this memorandum, “the award gives back the land in name only to the Zulus, whereas in reality Ketshwayo will have no control over it; he will not be able to exercise authority over his own people living on it, without coming into collision immediately with their Boer masters, who would fiercely resent any intrusion on his part on their farms; he will not be able to send any of his people to live on it, or any of his cattle to graze on it, or even to assign places in it to such of his people as may elect to move from the Boer to the Zulu side of the new boundary.”[114] To which Sir Bartle replies, that he had “a strong impression[115] that, if Cetshwayo were simply told the disputed land was assigned to him, he would at once conclude that it was his in full Zulu sovereignty;” which he assumed to be impossible with regard to any land which had once been under the British flag, while to eject a settler who had bought the land from the Transvaal Government, in the belief that it could maintain him upon it, he regarded as an “unjust and immoral act.” In point of fact, the land in question could only have been looked upon as “under the British flag,” in trust for the rightful possessors, and the farmers had settled upon it in the full knowledge that the title to it was in dispute; while, even had it been otherwise as to the latter point, the only just claim that could be raised would be against the Boer Government, or its representative, and certainly not against the