But at all events we had gained one definite result by all the blood and money spent in the Zulu war. The most important and earnestly insisted on immediate cause of our attack upon Zululand was the invasion of our soil, and the violation of our sanctuary, committed by Mehlokazulu and his brother, sons of Sihayo, when they seized and carried off two women who had taken refuge in Natal. We “requested” the Zulu king to deliver up the young men to us for judgment and for punishment, and he begged us to accept a fine in lieu of the persons of the offenders. We declined this proposal and repeated our request, which suddenly became a “demand” when it appeared in the ultimatum, and as such remained. It was said at the time that, had the young men been given up even after the troops had crossed the border, hostilities would have been suspended until the rest of the demands could be complied with. But they were not, so we went to war. And now, at last, the war was over, one of Sihayo’s sons had fallen in battle, and Mehlokazulu, the other, was in our hands. Here was what we had fought for, and obtained! What would be done with him? By the military authorities he could only be treated like any other prisoner of war, and released unharmed amongst the other Zulus. He was therefore handed over to the civil authorities at Pietermaritzburg to be tried by them, although he was denied the same advantages of counsel which are accorded by law to other civil prisoners. This denial was commented upon unfavourably by those who desired justice to be done, but, apparently, Mehlokazulu required no counsel, for he was not tried. He had committed no offence on British soil punishable in a Zulu subject by British law. His own king could have punished him by our request, but we had deposed and transported that king, and there was no law by which we could have inflicted anything beyond a trifling fine for trespass upon the man whom we had compassed heaven and earth, and shed so much of England’s noblest blood, to seize. The magistrate declined to commit him for trial, and Mehlokazulu was permitted to return to his home. “Doubtless,” remarks _The Natal Colonist_ of October 27th, “the legal adviser of the Crown was concerned in the case, and framed the charge which there was the best chance of being substantiated. And this is the result—‘there was no evidence to maintain the charge.’... It is a miserable conclusion to a most miserable affair.... The charge which, as we have seen, is almost made the chief occasion of the war which has desolated so many homes, and cost millions of money, completely breaks down when brought to the test of legal trial, and the prisoner is, of necessity, set at liberty. We never believed much in the other pretexts for the war put forward by Sir Bartle Frere, but we confess that we always thought the outrage by Sihayo’s sons was one to be visited with condign punishment, whether it was one which would