Sir Bartle Frere, accordingly, was very particular in requesting Sir Henry Bulwer to give Cetshwayo notice (C. 2222, p. 222) that “_rigid punctuality with regard to time will be insisted on, and, unless observed, such steps as may appear necessary will be immediately taken to ensure compliance_,” which Sir H. Bulwer notifies to the Zulu king upon the same day, December 16th (C. 2308, p. 31). Two days later Mr. John Dunn wrote to say that he had received a message from the king (2222, p. 227), requesting him “to write and say that he agrees to the demands of giving up Sihayo’s sons and brother, and the fines of cattle; but begs that, should the number of days (twenty) have expired before the arrival of the cattle, His Excellency will take no immediate action, as, owing to the many heavy rains[117] we have had since the meeting of His Excellency’s Commissioners and his indunas, they have not been able to reach him yet; and Sihayo’s sons being at their kraals, which are some way from him, it will take some days to send for them.” “On the other demands he will give his answer on consulting his indunas.” Yet Sir Bartle Frere declares (P. P. [C. 2454] p. 136) that Cetshwayo “was resolved on war rather than on compliance with any demand of ours.” Bishop Schreuder’s opinion, reported through Mr. Fannin on December 22nd (2308, p. 31), was that all the demands would be agreed to except that of the disbandment of the army and the abolition of the military system. “The king and nation will consider it a humiliation, and a descent from their proud position as independent Zulus to the lower and degrading position of Natal Kafirs, to agree to this demand. I asked,” says Mr. Fannin, “if the announcement that the restriction on marriage would be removed would not reconcile the young men to the change. He (Bishop Schreuder) thinks not; they will stand by their king, and fight for the old institutions of their country.” The king’s request for some indulgence as to time was peremptorily refused, and was looked upon as “a pitiful evasion,” on the grounds that he had already had four months to consider the question of Sihayo’s sons. In point of fact, however, the first “demand” had only been made a week before, and, until then, the word “request” having been used, the king was at liberty to offer atonement for the offence other than the surrender of the offenders, as Sir Henry Bulwer himself suggested (2222, p. 173), by paying a fine of five thousand head of cattle from the Zulu nation. Sir B. Frere’s answer to Cetshwayo through Mr. Dunn (2222, p. 227) was, “That the word of Government as already given, cannot now be altered.