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 he proceeds he will also find
that there is not much to be said for the characters of either Sir
Garnet Wolseley or Lord Chelmsford; whilst as regards such small fry as
Mr. John Shepstone, the present Secretary of Native Affairs in Natal,
after passing through Miss Colenso's mill their reputations come out
literally in rags and tatters. He will be shocked to find that not only
did one and all of these gentlemen make gross errors of judgment, but,
trusted and distinguished servants of their country as they are, they