The second consideration was even more singular, namely, that allowance must be made on Mr. John Shepstone’s side for the greater ability with which the Bishop conducted his case; and the third lay in the statement that “Mr. J. W. Shepstone is a man of known courage, and a noted sportsman and shot,” and “was not likely to have missed” Matyana if he had fired at him; “and, if driven to fire into the crowd in self-defence, it is more probable that he would have shot one of the men on the right.” The Bishop’s opponents from the very first persistently put forward the notion that he had “brought a charge against Mr. J. W. Shepstone,” and this was countenanced by the Government when they threw upon him the serious task of prosecuting before a Court of Enquiry, whereas in point of fact the real question at issue was not whether or no a certain shot was actually fired, but whether, on a certain occasion, a Government official had acted in a treacherous manner towards a native chief, thereby giving reason for the excuse of fear on the part of Langalibalele, treated as a false pretence by the court, some members of which were fully aware of the facts, and the prosecutor himself the official concerned. And, further, whether the said facts had been concealed by high Government officers, and denied by them repeatedly to their superiors in England. On the former questions Colonel Colley’s report leaves no doubt, and Lord Carnarvon’s comments upon it are of a very decided nature. After signifying his acceptance of the decision as a “sound and just conclusion,” and complimenting Colonel Colley on the “able and conscientious manner in which” he “has acquitted himself of an arduous and delicate task,” he continues: “On the other hand, I must, even after the lapse of so many years, record my disapprobation of the artifices by which it is admitted Matyana was entrapped into the meeting with a view to his forcible arrest. Such underhand manœuvres are opposed to the morality of a civilised administration; they lower English rule in the eyes of the natives; and they even defeat their own object, as is abundantly illustrated by the present case.” Mr. J. W. Shepstone, however, was a subordinate officer, and if his mode of executing the warrant was approved by the superior authorities in the colony, the blame which may attach to the transaction must be borne by them at least in equal proportion.