g's opponents against their will_." We pause to remark, that
already in this fact, viz. the cheerful dismissal of prisoners upon
their own verbal assurance of friendliness, though so little
reconcilable with the furious service on which they were taken, there
is enough to acquit the Shah of unmerciful designs. He made an opening
through which all might have escaped. "But," proceeds the author, "the
majority, excited by fanaticism, were not restrained, even by the
Shah's presence, from evincing their animosity towards his person, and
avowing their determination to have been to seek his life. One of them,
more violent than the rest, upon the interference of one of his
majesty's attendants, stabbed him with his dagger; and they were then"
[_then?_ what! because one was worse than the rest?] "immediately
ordered for execution. Two of them, however, were afterwards spared;
one upon the plea of his being a Syud," (i.e., a descendant
collaterally from the Prophet,) "and the other, because he pleaded hard
for his life."

[1] _History of the War in Affghanistan_. Brookes: London. 1843. We cite
this work, as one of respectable appearance and composition; but
unaccountably to us, from page 269 for a very considerable space, (in
fact, from the outbreak of the Cabool insurrection to the end of General
Elphinstone's retreat,) we find a _literatim_ reprint of Lieutenant
Eyre's work. How is _that_?

This account is not very luminous; and it is painful to observe that
the man who was abject, and the man who was lucky, were the two
selected for mercy. What proportion had previously been dismissed, is
not said. The affair occasioned much discussion, as we all know; and
the author speaks doubtfully of the necessity[1] under which the
execution took place, as not "satisfactorily ascertained." He speaks
even more doubtfully of the _persons_ supposed to be implicated, viz.
the Shah and the commander-in-chief, than of the _thing_. Little,
indeed, could have been known distinctly, where rumour ascribed to each
separately the most contradictory acts and motives. Us it surprises,
that Lord Keane has not publicly explained himself under such gloomy
insinuations. But, in the mean time, this is plain, that the Shah is
entitled to benefit by the doubts hanging over the case, not less than
our own officer. The writer suggests as one reason for a favourable
judgment on the Shah, "previous acts of humanity in the course of his
life." Undoubtedly there