pamphlets, and could therefore have no right to an opinion as to his reception or treatment of evidence, or he would not venture to use the expressions just quoted of one who had never made an assertion without the most careful and patient sifting of the grounds for it, whose only object was to establish the truth, _whatever that might be_, and who was only too glad whenever his investigations threw discredit upon a tale of wrong or oppression. That principles of strict honour and justice should in these our days be characterised as “peculiar views,” is neither to the credit of the English nation nor of its “only man.” In the second despatch mentioned Sir Garnet makes the following singular remark: “In the meantime I take the liberty of informing your lordship that the words ‘the Amahlubi may, if they choose, when that is prepared which is to be prepared, go to him,’ are interpreted, by those who have taken an active part in favour of the tribe, as binding the Government to convey all members of the Amahlubi tribe who may wish to join Langalibalele, to whatever place may be finally selected for his location. I do not conceive that any such meaning is intended, and should not recommend that such an interpretation should be recognised. I think, however, it may fairly be matter for consideration whether Langalibalele’s wives and children, who have lost all their property,[45] might not be assisted with passages by sea to join Langalibalele.”[46] It is difficult to imagine what other interpretation can be placed on the words of the proclamation, or how, after it had once been delivered, any narrower measures could be fairly considered, or require further “instructions.” In subsequent letters Sir Garnet scouts altogether representations made by the Bishop of the destitute condition of members of the Hlubi tribe, replying to Lord Carnarvon on the subject by enclosing letters from various magistrates in different parts of the country denying that destitution existed; saying that the people were “in sufficiently good circumstances;” and most of them suggesting that, should anything like starvation ensue, the people have only to hire themselves out as labourers to the white people. The Bishop would certainly never have made representations unsupported by facts; but in any case it is a question whether we had not some further duties towards a large number of innocent people whom we had stripped of all their possessions, and whose homes and crops we had destroyed, than that of allowing them to labour for us at a low rate of wages; or whether the mere fact of its being thus possible for all to keep body and soul together relieved us of the responsibility of having robbed and stripped them. These facts in themselves prove how different from Lord Carnarvon’s feelings and intentions were those of his subordinate, and how real Sir Garnet’s antagonism. It is not therefore surprising that the commands of the former were not, and have never been, carried out.