§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that two of the most powerful chiefs in Zululand have protested to Sir H. Bulwer against the return of Cetewayo; and, whether he can state what steps, if any, are to be taken to convert them to the views of Her Majesty's Government?
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from John Dunn ("Times," Oct. 21st), in which he says that 652
Cetewayo's restoration will again be the cause of a great deal of bloodshed I am afraid, as some of us will have to hold our own, but I can hardly believe that any Government will persist in such a course;and, whether he has taken any notice of such disquieting language?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYSir, I would call to recollection what I said on the 16th of August in the House—namely, that some portion of the country, to be hereafter defined, will be reserved in order to meet obligations towards those of the appointed Chiefs and people who may not be willing to return under Cetewayo's rule. Sir Henry Bulwer has informed us that two or three of the appointed Chiefs are unwilling to remain under Ceteway's rule; and the proposals which are on the way home from Sir Henry Bulwer will, I hope, enable provision to be made for the residence of these Chiefs outside Cetewayo's jurisdiction. In reply to the second Question, I may recall the fact that the letter which appeared in The Times of the 21st of October was dated as far back as the 26th of August, when, it is clear, John Dunn did not know what I have stated, and he wrote in reference to an assumed unconditional restoration of Cetewayo.