The first is on the subject of the return of Langalibalele, which the Bishop had recommended, offering to receive him upon his own land at Bishopstowe, and to make himself responsible, within reasonable limits, for the chief’s good behaviour. Sir Garnet “would deprecate in the strongest terms” such return. “Langalibalele,” he says, “as I am informed by all classes here, official and non-official (a very small knot of men of extreme views excepted), is regarded by the native population at large as a chief who, having defied the authorities, and in doing so occasioned the murder of some white men, is now suffering for that conduct.” While thus avoiding the direct responsibility of sitting “in judgment upon past events,” by _quoting_ from “all classes here,” he practically confirms their opinion by speaking of those who differ from them as “a very small knot of men of extreme views;” and he further commits himself to the very unsoldierlike expression of “murder” as applied to the death of the five men at the Bushman’s River Pass, by speaking in the same paragraph of the punishment of the chief as “a serious warning to all other Kafir chiefs ... to avoid imitating his example.” Without mentioning the Bishop by name, he makes repeated allusions to him in a tone calculated to give an utterly false impression of his action and character. “To secure these objects” (the future safety of the colony and the true interests of white and black) “it is essential that a good feeling should exist between the two races; and I am bound to say that in my opinion those who, by the line of conduct they adopt, keep alive the recollection of past events,”[44] etc. etc. “I have no wish to attribute to those who adopt this policy any interested motives. I am sure that they are actuated by feelings of high philanthropy,” (? simple justice and honesty), “and nothing is farther from my mind than a wish to cast any slur upon them. Yet I must say that from the manner in which they refuse to believe all evidence that does not coincide with their own peculiar views, and from the fact of their regarding the condition of affairs in Natal from one standpoint alone, I am forced to consider them impractical (_sic_), and not to be relied on as advisers by those who are responsible for the good government of all classes.” In the following paragraphs he speaks of “sensational narratives oftentimes based upon unsifted evidence,” “highly-coloured accounts,” and “one-sided, highly-coloured, and, in some instances, incorrect statements that have been made public in a sensational manner,” all which could refer to the Bishop alone. If by regarding the condition of affairs in Natal from one standpoint alone, Sir Garnet Wolseley means the standpoint of British honour and justice, and looks upon those who hold it as “impractical,” there is little more to say. But Sir Garnet can never have given his attention to the Bishop’s printed