but scanty sympathy for the victims of the Delhi court—an author who can indulge in cold-hearted and cynical criticism upon such men as Sir R. Montgomery and Sir Henry Lawrence, who went through fiery trials of responsibility of which he, in his comfortable London home, ten thousand miles away from their danger, could have little idea. I am sorry to write these words. But I was there, he was not; and I know whereof I affirm, and can conscientiously say that I consider some of Mr. Martin's representations in his “Indian Empire” to be unworthy of the confidence of the American public. His slurs and innuendoes caused deep feeling in the minds of some of the best men in India, many of whom were not at all his intellectual inferiors, while they were his superiors in opportunities for forming correct opinions. They had not to depend, as he seems to have done for some of his representations, upon hasty and partial statements, or such writers as “Bull-Run Russell!” His glorification of Sir Colin Campbell and Sir James Outram, to the prejudice of General Havelock and Sir John Lawrence, only shows that he had his favorites, and would belittle other men to make them look greater. But we in India knew the difference, and it was the conviction of many there, competent to give an opinion upon such matters, that Sir Colin Campbell was not only slow, but that he did nothing more than what any brave English officer could have done with the same resources. As to Sir James Outram, so far as the establishment of Christianity in the Valley of the Ganges is concerned, I know from my own personal intercourse with both, and their actions, that we may have great reason to be thankful that Sir James Outram was superseded, and the evangelically courageous Sir Robert Montgomery was appointed to be ruler of Oude during the founding of our Mission in that kingdom.
Mr. Martin's peculiar notions on the lawfulness or expediency of capital punishment must have been often offended by the events of the time. It would, however, have been but fair to have extended the benefit of his doctrine as fully to the victims of the Sepoys as to the Sepoys themselves. It may, however, be doubted if his narrative shows this clearly. The consideration he seems so ready to
