SOUTH AFRICA.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:"]
have read with deep regret your article on the new diffi- culty in South Africa. You write of Ketahwayo as if he were a mere savage, whose object it was to make war for war's sake; whereas for twenty years past he has, in the very matter of this disputed territory, exercised an amount of self-control which I feel sure no Englishman would have displayed in similar circum- stances. During that long period the Natal Government have known that the Zulus claimed the boundary which Sir T. Shep- stone now refuses to give up to them. At his entreaty they laid down their assegais, in the belief that justice would be done them in the end. Nevertheless Sir Theophilus, without a word of justi- fication, but by a mere arbitrary assertion of authority, now tells them that this land shall not be theirs. There never was a dis- pute which more fairly called for compromise, or which, so far as I can judge, ought more readily to admit of satisfactory adjust- ment. I, of course, say this on the assumption that Zulus have rights as well as Englishmen. The contrary doctrine is only too popular in many quarters.
Correspondents of the Aborigines' Protection Society in South Africa who have been recently in communication with Ketshwayo declare that be has no desire to engage in war, but is willing to submit the question at issue to the decision of the Queen. Un- fortunately the part which Sir T. Shepstone took in the Langa- libalele outbreak has impaired the confidence with which the Kaffirs formerly regarded this able administrator, and I would suggest that an effort should be made to restore that confidence by some better means than the extermination of another native
Previous page
