returned a favourable answer.

Accordingly Mr. Shepstone proceeded to Zululand, and on the 3rd
September 1873 proclaimed Cetywayo king with all due pomp and ceremony.
It was on this occasion that, in the presence of, and with the
enthusiastic assent of, both king and people, Mr. Shepstone, "standing
in the place of Cetywayo's father, and so representing the nation,"
enunciated the four following articles, with a view to putting an end to
the continual slaughter that darkens the history of Zululand:--

1. That the indiscriminate shedding of blood shall cease in the land.

2. That no Zulu shall be condemned without open trial, and the public
examination of witnesses for and against, and that he shall have a right
to appeal to the king.

3. That no Zulu's life shall be taken without the previous knowledge and
consent of the king, after such trial has taken place, and the right of
appeal has been allowed to be exercised.

4. That for minor crimes the loss of property, all or a portion, shall
be substituted for the punishment of death.

Nobody will deny that these were admirable regulations, and that they
were received as such at the time by the Zulu king and people. But there
is no doubt that their ready acceptance by the king was a sacrifice to
his desire to please "his father Sompseu" (Mr. Shepstone) and the Natal
Government, with both of which he was particularly anxious to be on
good terms. He has never adhered to these coronation regulations, or
promises, as they have been called, and the probability is that he
never intended to adhere to them. However this may be, I must say that
personally I have been unable to share the views of those who see in
the breach of these so-called promises a justification of the Zulu war.
After all, what do they amount to, and what guarantee was there for
their fulfilment? They merely represent a very laudable attempt on the
part of the Natal Government to keep a restraining hand on Zulu cruelty,
and to draw the bonds of friendship as tight as the idiosyncrasies of
a savage state would allow. The Government of Natal had no right to
dictate the terms to a Zulu king on which he was to hold his throne. The
Zulu nation was an independent nation, and had never been conquered or
annexed by Natal. If the Government of that colony was able by friendly
negotiation to put a stop to Zulu slaughter, it was a matter for
congratulation on humanitarian grounds; but it is difficult to follow
the ar