§ SIR. DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it was the fact that, down to the most recent dates from the Cape, the Zulu King has not been permitted to see his personal friends, who understand his language, and could learn from him what he may have to say on his own behalf; and whether, in particular, permission to vizit Cetewayo has been refused by Sir Bartle Frere to the sons of Bishop Colenso on two separate occasions; and, whether he can state the reasons for refusing such permission, and will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence, telegraphic or other, which has recently taken place between the Colonial Office and the South African authorities as to the treatment of the imprisoned chiefs Cetewayo and Langalibalele?
MR. GRANT DUFFSir. In reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to state that I cannot answer generally with respect to Cetewayo's personal friends, because I have not the information to enable me to do so; but it is perfectly true that permission was refused—and Her Majesty's Government think, unfortunately, refused—to two members of Bishop Colenso's family who wished to see Cetewayo. With regard to that matter the Secretary of State has telegraphed out to the Cape to say that they think the reasons given were not sufficient for not allowing Bishop Colenso's sons to see Cetewayo, and that they desire that in future all persons who wish to have access to the King should be admitted, unless it should be considered distinctly unsafe. With reference to the last part of the Question, I have to say that there will be no objection to laying the Correspondence on the Table as soon as it is completed. At present it is very imperfect, and we know that an exceedingly important despatch is on its way to us.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will add to his answer by telling us what is the number of wives allowed to Cetewayo?