settlement, and to maintain the character of English justice and the
honour of the English name. Were Mr. Osborn to throw up his post or to
be assassinated, the authorities would find it difficult to keep the
whole settlement from collapsing like a card castle.

Nobody who understood Zulu character and aspirations could ever have
executed such a settlement as Sir Garnet Wolseley's, unless he did it
in obedience to some motive or instructions that it was not advisable
to publish. It is true that Sir Garnet's experience of the Zulus was
extremely small, and that he put aside the advice of those who did know
them with that contempt with which he is wont to treat colonists and
their opinions. Sir Garnet Wolseley does not like colonial people,
possibly because they have signally failed to appreciate heaven-born
genius in his person, or his slap-dash drumhead sort of way of settling
the fate of countries, and are, indeed, so rude as to openly say, that,
in their opinion, he did more mischief in Africa in a few months, than
it would take an ordinary official a lifetime to accomplish.

However this may be, stop his ears as much as he might, Sir Garnet
cannot have been entirely blind to the import of what he was doing, and
the only explanation of his action is that he entered on it more with
the idea of flattering and gratifying English public opinion, than of
doing his best for the Zulus or the white Colonists on their borders. A
great outcry had been raised at home, where, in common with most South
African affairs, the matter was not thoroughly understood, against the
supposed intended annexation of Zululand for the benefit of "greedy
colonists." It was argued that colonists were anxious for the annexation
in order that they might get the land to speculate with, and doubtless
this was, in individual instances, true. I fully agree with those who
think that it would be unwise to throw open Zululand to the European