The triumph, however, to Sir Benjamin D’Urban was not long-lived. At this time Lord Glenelg was Secretary of State for the Colonies in England, and Lord Glenelg was a man subject to what I may perhaps not improperly call the influences of Exeter Hall. When the full report of the Kafir war reached him a certain party at home had been loud in expressions of pity and perhaps of admiration for the South African races. Hottentots and Kafirs had been taken home,--or at any rate a Hottentot and a Kafir,--and had been much admired. No doubt Lord Glenelg gave his best attention to the reports sent to him;--no doubt he consulted those around him;--certainly without doubt he acted in accordance with his conscience and with a full appreciation of the greatness of the responsibility resting upon him;--but I think he acted with very bad judgment. He utterly repudiated what Sir Benjamin D’Urban had done, and asserted that the Kafirs had had “ample justification” for the late war. He declared in his despatch that “they had a perfect right to hazard the experiment of extorting by force that redress which they could not expect otherwise to obtain,” and he caused to be returned to the Kafirs the land from which they had been driven,--which land has since that again become a part of the British Colony. There was a correspondence in which Sir B. D’Urban supported his own views,--but this ended in the withdrawal of the Governor in 1838, Lord Glenelg declaring that he was willing to take upon himself the full responsibility of what he had done, and of all that might come from it. I think I am justified in saying that since that time public opinion has decided against Lord Glenelg, and has attributed to his mistake the further Kafir wars of 1846 and 1850. It is often very difficult in the beginning of such quarrels to say who is in the right, the Savage or the civilized invader of the country. The Savage does not understand the laws as to promises, treaties, and mutual compacts which we endeavour to impose upon him, and we on the other hand are determined to live upon his land whether our doing so be just or unjust. In such a condition of things we,--meaning the civilized intruders,--are obliged to defend our position. We cannot consent to have our throats cut when we have taken the land, because our title to possession is faulty. If ever a Governor was bound to interfere for the military defence of his people, Sir Benjamin D’Urban was so bound. If ever a Savage was taken red-handed in treachery, Hintsa was so taken, and was so shot down. The full carrying out of Lord Glenelg’s views would have required us to give back all the country to the Hottentots, to compensate the Dutch for our interference, and to go back to Europe. Surely no man was ever so sorely punished for the adequate performance of a most painful public duty as Sir Benjamin D’Urban.