which, I persist in saying, we owe so much of our power and security in South Africa. Nor so long as we observe the rules of justice to them shall we do any good by disguising our substantial differences, or refraining from indignant remonstrances against proceedings which are not only repugnant to humanity, but violate their engagements with us and endanger our security.” [57] Colonel Durnford, R.E., who paid a flying visit to Pretoria at the time. [58] Mr. John Dunn is said to have stated to the Special Correspondent of _The Cape Argus_, and to have since reaffirmed his statement, that Sir T. Shepstone “sent word to Cetshwayo that he was being hemmed in, and the king was to hold himself in readiness to come to his assistance.” This assertion has also been denied by Sir T. Shepstone’s supporters. [59] P. P. [C. 1776] p. 88. [60] It may be interesting to compare the above with the wording of Sir T. Shepstone’s “Commission”—P. P. [C. 1776] p. 111. [61] The chief repeatedly refused to sign any paper presented to him by the Boers, on the grounds that he could not tell what it might contain, beyond the points explained to him, to which he might afterwards be said to have agreed; showing plainly to what the natives were accustomed in their dealings with the Transvaal. [62] That claimed by the Boers. [63] P. P. (2079, pp. 51-54). [64] The conclusion arrived at, after a careful consideration of all producible evidence, by the Rorke’s Drift Commission, in 1878. [65] A liability transferred to the Zulu king by Sir Bartle Frere in his correspondence with the Bishop of Natal. [66] That is to say, that they may be bribed by substantial benefits to acquiesce in the loss of their liberties. [67] Was it by inadvertence that Sir T. Shepstone speaks of “us” and “we,” thus producing a sentence so strangely and unhappily applicable? [68] Italics not Sir B. Frere’s. [69] Author’s italics throughout. [70] Author’s italics. [71] “_Ama_-Swazi” for the plural correctly, as also “Ama-Zulu.” [72] Sir Henry Bulwer, speaking of the disputed territory generally, writes as follows: “The Zulu king had always, in deference very much to the wishes and advice of this Government (Natal), forborne from doing anything in respect of the question that might produce a collision, trusting to the good offices of this Government to arrange the difficulty by other means. But no such arrangement had ever been made; and thus the question had drifted on until the formal annexation of the disputed territory by the Government of the Republic last year, and their subsequent attempt to give a practical effect to their proclamation of annexation by levying taxes upon the Zulus residing in the territory, provoked a resistance and a feeling of resentment which threatened to precipitate a general collision at any moment.”—SIR H. BULWER, _June 29th, 1876_ (C. 1961, p. 1).