Bishop Colenso and the Zulu Question.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3446, 10 January 1880, Page 2

Bishop Colenso and the Zulu Question.

The Daily News publishes the following extract from a letter, dated Sept. 14th, which Bishop Colenso has addressed to the Aborigines Protection Society :—" Sir Garnet Wolseley tries i to represent that, because most of the Indunas have surrendered themselves, therefore the King was abandooed by his people, who no longer wished to. be under his rule. Of course the Indunas— many of them—surrendered at the last. What else could they do, when the English army occupied their country, and their families were Hying in dire misery, and would certainly starve if they were not allowed to plant their crops this season for the next year's supplies of food, more especially as much of the produce of the last harvest had been burnt and otherwise destroyed by our forces. ..--.. But the people, did they cast off their Kingi There is not the least sign of it, and, in fact, the treatment of him shows that Sir Garnet Wolseley does not believe in any such disloyalty on their part, or any such hatred of their «' bloodthirsty tyrant," as Sir Bartle Frere asserted continually with respect to time Was not his hiding-place betrayed to the British force P Yes, it was; after he had been hunted by forces of mounted men in all directions tor two months, at the end of which the following process was employed by the great English General to secure his capture, for no doubt Lord Gilford acted under instructions :—Five Zulus were taken prisoners, and questioned severely as to the place where the king was hiding*. They persisted, in declaring that they did not. know where he was, whereupon they were all flogged ! —with what right let Englishmen judge. They bore their flogging, and still refused to betray their Sing's hiding-place, and two of them managed to escape. Then the scheme was adopted which had been practiced once before in this war, of taking them blindfolded each to a separate spot, wben two gunshots were fired, and each, of course, supposed that the other two were killed. And so the secret was obtained from one or more of them. I wonder if this dignified proceeding will be duly reported in the Blue-books. . . And now, as to the ' pacification' of Zululand. I can only repeat what I have said in my former letters, that in my opinion Sir Garnet Wolseley's arrangement will prove a complete failure, and that I see no grounds whatever for believing that he has established a perminent state of peace in the country. You will see that on this point I am for once in full accord with the Natal papers. The Natal Mercury insists upon the-neces-sity of annexing Zululand, whereas my remedy would be the restoration' of the King, say at the end of a year, and of course with powers duly limited under a British Resident, who should be an English gentleman of character and ability. ... AH stores and troops are to be withdrawn from Zululand, and will be in about two week's time; and then the Zulus will! be left to themselves, with a white President (temporarily) in the person of Mr Wheelwright, a young man who was, brought up in the colony, and was interpreter in a magistrate's court in 1873, but has since been promoted, first to be an administrator of native law, and latterly to be a- resident magistrate, r . . Cetewayo has one son, who may have been killed among those who tried to escape when his father had been captured, but who, if living, will be an important factor in the future history of Zululand."