CHAPTER VII. THE MATSHANA INQUIRY AND COLONEL COLLEY. In consequence of the threatened action for libel against the Bishop of Natal on account of statements made in his defence of Langalibalele, which Mr. John Shepstone considered to be “of a most libellous and malicious nature,” the Bishop had laid the matter before the Lieut.-Governor, Sir B. Pine, requesting him to direct an inquiry to be made into the truth of the said statements. This was refused by His Excellency through the acting Colonial Secretary in the following terms: “Your lordship has thought it right to make the most serious charges against an important and long-tried officer of this Government—charges, too, relating to a matter which occurred sixteen years ago.[47] That officer has, in His Excellency’s opinion, very properly called upon your lordship to retract those charges. Instead of doing this, you have appealed to the Lieut.-Governor to institute an inquiry as to the truth of the charges you have made. This the Lieut.-Governor has no hesitation in declining to do.” Thereby prejudging the case without inquiry. The Bishop’s next action was an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which he requested the Lieut.-Governor to forward with a copy of the correspondence which had already taken place on the subject, in order that His Excellency might be fully aware of what steps he was taking. This appeal contained a short account of the facts which had led to his making the statements complained of—the trial of Langalibalele, and the “fear of treachery” perpetually pleaded by many witnesses in excuse of the chiefs conduct, but treated with contempt both by the court below and the council, each including the Secretary for Native Affairs, and presided over by His Excellency. The statements made by the Bishop—not mere “charges” unsupported by evidence, but the deposition of four eye-witnesses who might be cross-examined at will—would, if proved to be true, greatly tend to palliate the offences imputed to the chief, and should therefore not have been suppressed by the officer concerned, who had kept silence when a word from his mouth would have cleared a prisoner on trial for his life from a very serious part of the charge against him. The Bishop therefore submitted that the fact of the events in question having taken place sixteen years before was no reason why they should not be brought to light when required for the prisoner’s defence.