oes the Governor of Natal
speak to me about my laws? Do I go to Natal and dictate to
him about his laws? I shall not agree to any laws or rules
from Natal, and by doing so throw the large kraal which I
govern into the water. My people will not listen unless they
are killed; and while wishing to be friends with the
English, I do not agree to give my people over to be
governed by laws sent to me by them. Have I not asked the
English to allow me to wash my spears since the death of my
father 'Umpandi,' and they have kept playing with me all
this time, treating me like a child? Go back and tell the
English that I shall now act on my own account, and if they
wish me to agree to their laws, I shall leave and become a
wanderer; but before I go it will be seen, as I shall not go
without having acted. Go back and tell the white men this,
and let them hear it well. The Governor of Natal and I are
equal; he is Governor of Natal, and I am Governor here."

To admit that the Zulu king has the right to kill as many of his
subjects as he chooses, so long as they will tolerate being killed, is
one thing, but it is certainly surprising to find educated Europeans
adopting a line of defence of these proceedings on his behalf that
amounts to a virtual expression of approval, or at least of easy
toleration. Has philanthropy a deadening effect on the moral sense, that
the people who constitute themselves champions for the unfortunate Zulu
king and the oppressed Boers cannot get on to their hobbies without
becoming blind to the difference between right and wrong? Really an
examination of the utterances of these champions of oppressed innocence
would almost lead one to that conclusion. On the one hand they suppress
and explain away facts, and on the other supply their want of argument
by reckless accusations and vicious attacks on the probity of such
of their fellow-Englishmen, especially if in office, as have had the
misfortune to pursue a course of action or to express opinions not
pleasing to them or their proteges. For instance, an innocent and
unenlightened reader of the very interesting work from which I have just
quoted probably lays it down with the conviction that both Sir Bartle
Frere and Sir Theophilus Shepstone are very wicked men and full of bad
motives, and will wonder how a civilised Government could employ such
monsters of bloodthirsty duplicity. As