Nevertheless, in spite of the repeated disappointments with which they met, the Zulus continued to send complaints and entreaties to the Government of Natal; which messages, although they never varied in their respectful and friendly tone towards the English, show plainly how deeply they felt the neglect with which they were treated. The English “promises” are spoken of again and again, and the thirteenth message contains a sentence worth recording, in its simple dignity. “Cetshwayo desired us,” say the messengers, “to urge upon the Governor of Natal to interfere, to save the destruction of perhaps both countries—Zululand and the Transvaal. He requests us to state that he cannot and will not submit to be turned out of his own houses. It may be that he will be vanquished; but, as he is not the aggressor, death will not be so hard to meet” (1748, p. 14). Sir Henry Bulwer’s answers to these messages contain passages which sufficiently prove that up to this time the Government of Natal had no complaints to make against the Zulu king. “This is the first opportunity the Lieutenant-Governor has had,” he says, “of communicating with Cetshwayo since his (Sir H. Bulwer’s) arrival in the Colony. He therefore takes the opportunity of sending him a friendly greeting, and of expressing the pleasure with which he had heard of the satisfactory relations that have existed between this Colony and the Zulus,” November 25th, 1875 (1748, p. 15). “This Government trusts that Cetshwayo will maintain that moderation and forbearance which he has hitherto shown, and which the Government has great pleasure in bringing to the notice of the councillors of the great Queen, and that nothing will be done which will hinder the peaceful solution of the Disputed Territory question,” July 25th, 1876 (1748, p. 97). Meanwhile repeated acts of violence and brutality on the part of the Boers are reported, and in the Blue-books before us the Zulu complaints are confirmed from various official sources, by Mr. Fynn, Resident Magistrate of the Umsinga Division (1748, p. 10), by Sir Henry Bulwer (1748, pp. 8, 11, 12, 25), by Sir T. Shepstone himself (1748, pp. 10, 24, 29, 52, 56), by Mr. Osborn (1748, p. 82), and by Sir Henry Barkly (1748, p. 25). No attempt at settlement, however, had been made in answer to these appeals up to the time of the annexation of the Transvaal, in 1877, by Sir T. Shepstone; after which so great a change took place in the tone of the latter upon the subject of the disputed territory.