THE ZULU DIFFICULTY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1553, 10 February 1879, Page 4

THE ZULU DIFFICULTY.

An very little is at present known about this Zulu difficulty, which threatens to to war with the Zulus, it may be interesting (says the “ Hobart Town Mercury ”) to give a brief sketch of the circumstances which have led up to the existing warlike attitudes of the British and Zulus. The whole dispute is over a portion of territory on the border of Zulu Land and the Transvaal. During the reign of Umpande, the father of Oetewayo, the Boers in the Transvaal obtained his permission to depasture their cattle on the western frontier of Zulu Land, and soon after they began to erect houses and fences on the land as if they had bought or leased it. Umpande had never consented to their permanent occupation of the country, and he took steps to show the Boors that they would not be allowed to remain there. Ho did not, however, venture on any forcible attempt to drive them away, contenting himself with communicating with the British at Natal, who expressed sympathy with him. When Cetewayo, his son, became King in 1864, it was expected that bo would have gone to war against the Boers, but he wanted the support of the Natal Government before taking such an extreme measure, and he could never get it. The British answers deprecated war with the Boers and were friendly but evasive. This was not satisfactory to Oetowayo, especially as a visit from Mr Shepstone (now Sir Theophilus) shortly after he became King, was looked upon by the Zulus as a distinct promise of British protection. The Boers and the Zulus on the borders continued quarrelling, and when the Transvaal became involved in financial and other d'fficulties, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, in 1877, took possession of it on behalf of Great Britain, Thir act somewhat pacified Cetewayo, foi he had always been of opinion that if he had the British as his neighbors on the west, instead of the Boers, they would recognise his right to the land which the latter had stolen, and all his troubles would be over. But he was wrong in his anticipations. Though the Natal Government had always sympathised with him, and virtually acknowledged that his claim was a perfectly just one, Sir T. Shepstone informed him that the British had taken over the claim of the Boors to the land in dispute. Thus the quarrel became one between the British and the Zulus, and no amicable arrangements having been come to, a recourse to arms seems inevitable. Endeavors have been made to avoid war, but without success. Cetewayo, who has always been friendly with the British, has more than once pointed out that his people could never be reconciled to the loss of the territory, and has requested, as a matter of justice, that the land should be restored, but not receiving any favorable reply, has threatened to use forcible means. In October, 1877, Sir Theophilus Shepstone had an interview with Cetewayo at the Blood River, in the disputed border land, but they failed to come to any agreement. Some weeks after he sent his son in the hope that he might negotiate with better success, but the Zulu King treated him discourteously, and mourned because Sir Theophilus “ had turned Boer.” What was to bo done now?

Both parties were evidently determined nut to surrender one jot of what they claimed to be their just rights, and a settlement seemed impossible. Yet Cetewayo, who throughout the whole proceedings has acted with great honesty and fairness, continued to exert hirr - self with a view to avoid war ; and if the British hud manifested the same desire for peace the difficulty might have been overcome. What the Zulu King did, and how he was treated by tho British, is summed up by a contemporary in tho following words : “ Here was a friendly savage prince willing to enter, so to speak, tho family of European nations, and, for the first time in Knffir history, to proceed by tho road of diplomacy, acting under the advioo of competent legal gentlemen ; and yet he was precluded from ibis course. Next he was invited to arbitrate, hut was not allowed to appoint an arbitrator ; and lastly, though satisfied with half the land in dispute, he was virtually told he was entitled to the whole.” This was by three Commissioners sent up by Sir Henry Bulwer, Governor of Natal, to report on the boundary ; after hearing evidence they returned “ strongly convinced that the Hutch had no claim, to any part of the territory.” The only inference to ho drawn from these peculiar and un-English-liko proceedings is that the subjection of Zulus was determined upon long since, and that tho land dispute has since been made a pretext for war. Even a compromise was refused by tho British, and hence, Cetewayo having done what he could to become re-possessed of all or a portion of what is admitted to be his own, and having a large army, is certain to make a stand against British invasion. The policy now being pursued by the British meets, we must admit, with much support. Many of those competent to speak authorativoly on the question maintain that Cetewayo ought not to be allowed to remain an independent chief or king. This opinion is advocated because the Zulus area very warlike people; they comprise 40,000 fighting men, and they like war, so that they are a constant terror to their neighbors. Sir Garnet Wolseley, when in Africa, looked upon them in anything but a favorable light, and insisted that they should be disarmed, that the kingship of Cetewayo should be abolished, and that the country should pay a tribute and should be opened up. Coming from an administrator of Sir Garnet’s experience, though he never ventured further than Natal, such a programme must have received careful consideration; for it will be remembered that less than three weeks since we published a telegram stating i hat the Governor of Capo Colony had despatched an order to Cetewayo demanding the disarmament of his people and the dispersion of his troops, the cession of Santa Lucia Bay to the British, and the presence of a political resident at his court. These conditions, according to a Cape paper of the 17fh of December, are a portion of tho award fixed by a High Commissioner who was recently appointed to inquire into the boundary dispute ; but we may state that the Zulus are also called upon to make compensation for outrages they have perpetrated in Natal. Some of these demands have been assented to by the Zulu King; but on asking for some time to considerjthe others he was met by a distinct refusal, followed by the massing ot troops on the frontier.