border,
which had been claimed and occupied by the Boers since 1869. The
question was referred to Shepstone before the Annexation, while he was
still in Natal, and he gave a direct decision against the Boers, and in
favour of the Zulus. There was thus no cause on that account for the
fear of a Zulu attack upon the Transvaal. But scarcely had Shepstone
become administrator of the Transvaal when he declared the ground in
dispute to be British territory, and discovered that there was the
strongest evidence for the contention of the Boers that the Zulus had no
right to the ground. Bulwer, the Governor of Natal, appointed a Boundary
Commission, which decided in favour of the Zulus, but Shepstone
vehemently opposed their verdict, and Bartle Frere and the High
Commissioner (Wolseley) followed him blindly.[26] The result was that
England sent an ultimatum to the Zulus, and the Zulu War took place,
which lowered the prestige of England among the Natives of South Africa.

It will thus be seen that Shepstone's two chief reasons for the
Annexation were devoid of foundation.

It was naturally difficult for the Secretary of State to justify his
instructions that the Annexation of the Transvaal was only to take
place in case a majority of the inhabitants favoured such a course, in
face of the fact that 6,800 out of 8,000 burghers had protested against
it.

But both Shepstone and Lord Carnarvon declared without a shadow of proof
that the signatures of the protesting petitions were obtained under
threats of violence. The case, indeed, was exactly the reverse. When the
meeting was held at Pretoria to sign this petition, Shepstone caused the
cannons to be pointed at the assemblage. As if this were not enough, he
issued a menacing proclamation against the signing of the petition.

When these pretexts were thus disposed of, they relied on the fact that
the Annexation was a _fait accompli_.

Delegates were sent to England to protest against the Annexation, but
Lord Carnarvon told them that he would only be misleading them if he
held out any hope of restitution. Gladstone afterwards endorsed this by
saying that he could not advise the Queen to withdraw her Sovereignty
from the Transvaal.

When it was represented that the Annexation was a deliberate breach of
the Sand River Convention, Sir Bartle Frere replied, in 1879, that if
they wished to go back to the Sand River Convention, they might just as
well go back to the Creation!

It is