By this time (August 8th) the witnesses from Zululand had arrived, from whom the Bishop learned the names of other important witnesses living Kwa’ Jobe, and at his request these also were sent for by Government messengers. Unfortunately, through Maboyi’s arrest, some of the Bishop’s witnesses summoned by the Secretary for Native Affairs arrived too late on the very day (August 21st) on which the evidence was closed, and others a day or two afterwards—twelve altogether—of whom only one could be heard, whom the Bishop had expressly named as a man whose testimony he especially desired to take. Upon the whole, Sir Garnet Wolseley, who began by “leaving entirely in the Bishop’s hands” the difficult and not inexpensive business of “obtaining his witnesses,” summoned ultimately twenty-two of them, of whom, however, four only could be heard by the Commissioner; two (Matshana and Ngijimi) did not come at all; and three, including a most important witness, were called too late to be able to arrive till all was over; while four more out of the seven who had been called by Mr. John Shepstone gave their evidence in support of the Bishop, as doubtless the three others would have done, if Mr. John Shepstone had called them. In the despatch to the Earl of Carnarvon, already quoted from (note to p. 91), Sir B. Pine remarks: “I think it further my duty to point out to your lordship that much of the evidence adduced by the Bishop in this case has been taken in this way (_ex parte_, without the safety of publicity, and the opportunity of cross-examination); evidence so taken is peculiarly untrustworthy, for everyone moderately acquainted with the native character is aware that when a question is put to a native, he will intuitively perceive what answer is required, and answer accordingly.” The above is a common but insufficiently supported accusation against the natives, denied by many who are more than “moderately acquainted” with their character; although of course it is the natural tendency of a subservient race in its dealings with its masters, and possible tyrants. But granting for the nonce its truth, it would, in the case of the Matshana inquiry, tell heavily on the Bishop’s side. Sir B. Pine was not present at the private investigation made by the Bishop, to which he alludes in the above sentence, and therefore can be no judge of the “cross-examination,” which the four original witnesses underwent; and they, if they did “intuitively perceive” what answer was required, and “answer accordingly,” must merely have spoken the truth; a truth which, at that early period of his investigations, the Bishop was _most reluctantly_ receiving, and would gladly have had disproved.