[56] Lord Blachford says in the article already quoted from: “The citizens of these Republics have gone out from among us into a hostile wilderness, because they could not endure a humanitarianism which not only runs counter to their habits and interest, but blasphemes that combination of gain with godliness which is part of their religion. While that humanitarianism forms a leading principle of our government they will not submit to it. Why should we bribe or force them to do so? It is no doubt right and wise to remain, if possible, on good terms with them. It is wise and generous to save them, if possible, in their day of calamity—as, with our own opposite policy, we have been able to save them—by a wave of the hand—twice from the Basutos, and once from the Zulus. (Once for all rather, through the course of many years, during which we have restrained the Zulus from asserting their own rights to the disputed territory, by promises that we would see justice done.—Author.) But it is neither wise nor necessary to embroil ourselves in their quarrels until they call for help, until they have had occasion to feel the evil effects of their own methods, and the measure of their weakness, and are ready, not in whispers or innuendos and confidential corners, but outspokenly in public meetings, or through their constituted authorities, to accept with gratitude our intervention on our own terms, until they are, if they ever can be, thus taught by adversity. I do not myself believe that we could enter into any political union with them except at the sacrifice of that character for justice to which, I persist in saying, we owe so much of our power and security in South Africa. Nor so long as we observe the rules of justice to them shall we do any good by disguising our substantial differences, or refraining from indignant remonstrances against proceedings which are not only repugnant to humanity, but violate their engagements with us and endanger our security.”
[57] Colonel Durnford, R.E., who paid a flying visit to Pretoria at the time.
[58] Mr. John Dunn is said to have stated to the Special Correspondent of The Cape Argus, and to have since reaffirmed his statement, that Sir T. Shepstone “sent word to Cetshwayo that he was being hemmed in, and the king was to hold himself in readiness to come to his assistance.” This assertion has also been denied by Sir T. Shepstone’s supporters.
[59] P. P. [C. 1776] p. 88.
[60] It may be interesting to compare the above with the wording of Sir T. Shepstone’s “Commission”—P. P. [C. 1776] p. 111.
[61] The chief repeatedly refused to sign any paper presented to him by the Boers, on the grounds that he could not tell what it might contain, beyond the points explained to him, to which he might afterwards be said to have agreed; showing plainly to what the natives were accustomed in their dealings with the Transvaal.
[62] That claimed by the Boers.
[63] P. P. (2079, pp. 51-54).
[64] The conclusion arrived at, after a careful consideration of all producible evidence, by the Rorke’s Drift Commission, in 1878.
[65] A liability transferred to the Zulu king by Sir Bartle Frere in his correspondence with the Bishop of Natal.