The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-14 00:00:00

. LITERATURE.
TILE EDINBURGH. REVIEW, No. 165.
July, 1845.
Two articles in the present number will be read with
much interest, namely, "The Bukhara Victims" niol
" Luther's Correspondence and Character." It is need-
less to say that the murder of Colonel Stoddart and
Captain Conolly has caused throughout the United
Kingdom, nay, we might say the whole civilised world,
great sorrow and regret. They were, to a certain extent,
agents of England, and the former especially was recom-
mended by the British Envoy at the Court of Persia, in
the strongest terms, to the favourable consideration of her
Majesty's Government for his services in Persia and
the adjoining countries. Partly on account of these re-
commendations he was instructed to proceed to Bukhara.
These circumstances are urged by the Reviewer as
evidence which should have made Captain Grover
hesitate before he asserted that " for a diplomatic
miss en, requiring coolness and self-command, a man
less adapted to the purpose could not readily have been
met with." We believe this ass;,rtion has been very
generally blamed, partly for its bad taste, and partly
because, after the services of Colonel Studdart in various
missions, it was not considered well teunded. The article
throughout is directed chiefly against Captain Grover's
book, which certainly does not meet with either favour or
mercy. According to the writer. he gives us little accurate
or authentic information that had not bef ,re b, en made
public, respecting the two unfortunate men whose history
was so full of melancholy interest, nor does he enlighten
our ignorance on the social c,ndition of the people of
Bukhara, or anything else connected with the country er
its chief, who has been guilty of suAl atrocious deeds. In
fact, he attaches more blame to the British Government
than the King of Bukhara for the untimely death of
St,ddard and Conolly. We concur wish the review, that
Capt. Grover has not made out his case, and we are also of
opinion that both Lord Auckland, Lord Palmerston, and
the Marquis of Clanricarde, th n at the Court of St.
Petersburgh, did everything that could be done to save
th dr lives. But the Khan was beyond their reach, the
catastrophe at Cauhul had excited his savage jealousy,
and the defeat of the Caubul division had convinced him

that he might commit any indignity upon England and
any cruelty on British subjects with impunity. The
mission of Dr. Wolff, too, is described as totally un-
called for, as proofs of the murder of these
unfortunate men had been received of which there
could be no possible doubt. The following extracts
on these points will be read with painful interest. It
may be necessary to state that Sir William Macing,hten
had instructed Captain Conolly to proceed to Bokhara,
and that this mission had also been solicited by the King
himself, for the purpose probably of getting another
victim within his grasp. Conolly accordingly proceeded
to that place and joined hi, friend.
. . . .

He was received with a show of friendship. A house
was assigned for his residence. He became the guest of the
Ameer, and, according to the custom of the country, a daily
sum was therefore provided for his maintenance. On the
10th November, Col. Stoddart took leave of the Russian
mission, and went to reside with his countryman. Towards
the close of that month intelligence of the insurrection at
Caubul, of the slaughter of Sir Alexander Burnes and many
of the English, and the destruction of the English influence
in Affghanistan, was recyived at Bokhara. The intelligence
gained consistency and strength, and seeing them cut off
from all support, the Ameer had both the British officers
placed in confinement on the 19th. Their servants and at-
tendants were seized at the same time; the whole of their
property was plundered, and an envoy from Shah Shoojah
was also arrested. Akliondzadeh Saleh Mahommed. who
had come from Caubul and Khiva, to join Capt. Conolly at
Bokhara, was seized and imprisoned, and his property plun-
dered. The efforts of the Russian minister were ineffectual
to procure their liberation; and M. Boutenieff finding that
the Ameer had assumed a haughty and insolent tone towards

himself, and that the safety of his party, too, might be come
promised, found it necessary to leave Bukhara in the spring.
The latest intelligence that had been received from these
officers was a note from Col. Stoddart, dated the 11th April,
1842. All the information on the accuracy of which any
reliance can be placed, represents them to have been put to
death by order of the A meer, and by his chief executioner,
in little more than two months from that time..
"The first authentic intelligence of this event was commu•
nicated to Col. Sheil by the Akhondzadeh Saleh Mahommed,
whose narrative is dated the 23d November, 1842. The
Akhondzadeh was at Bokhara at the time, having been re-
leased from prison only a few days before. He was a person
in confidential employment with Capt. Conolly. He had
given proofs of courage and fidelity, while employed to con-
vey money to Capt. Abbot in Khiva, such as are rarely to
be found amongst the people of any nation. He had been
imprisoned, chained, plundered of all he possessed at Bokhara,
because of his connexion with the English. His narrative
was clear and consistent, and bore every internal evidence
of truth, which those who are accustomed to weigh the
value of testimony, especially of Asiatic testimony, look for
in such a narrative. Col. Sheil, who had personally com-
municated with him, was convinced of his veracity. He had
❑o imaginable motive to deceive. He was communicating
intelligence which he knew would cause pain, and which
might make him less acceptable. He hid claims upon the
British Government, for the sufferings he had undergone, and
the pro[ erty he had lost in its service. He must have felt
that he would forfeit these claims if he should be found to
have made a false statement, and that he might be liable to
detection at any moment, if those whose death he reported
were yet alive. The perfect accuracy of the earlier part of
his narrative was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Abbot,
and by the last letter received from Capt. Conolly, which
detailed the circumstances preceding and attending his im-
prisonment. It is true he had not witnessed the execution,
but he had seen the graves; and he had received an account
of what had passed from the executioner, who even offered
to give him the heads of the two officers. It is not easy to
sce how impartial men.could well doubt that his testimony
was true "

Notwithstanding this strong evidence, Dr. Wolff's
mission was resolved on. Our readers know the result
The article on Luther is well timed, and furnishes a
complete answer to the calumnies heaped by the
Puseyites on that great Reformer. The subjoined ex
tracts show that only such a daring character could
have had any effect in pulling down the profligacy and
abominations which then prevailed throughout the
Catholic Church :
" On the whole, few names have such claims on the grati-
tude of mankind as that of Luther. Even Rome owes him
thanks ; for whatever ameliorations have taken place in her
system, have been owing far more to him than to herself. If
there are any two facts which history establishes, it is the
desperate condition of the Church at the time Luther ap-
peared, and the vanity of all hopes of a self-sought and volun-
tary reformation. On the former we need not dwell—for
none now deny it; it appears not only on every page of con-
temporary history, but in all the forms—especially the more
popular—of mediaeval literature. Never was a remark more
just than that of Mr. Ilallam, that the greater part of the
literature of the middle ages may be considered as artillery
levelled against the clergy.
" Of the second great fact—the hopelessness of any effective
internal reform—history leaves us in as little doubt. The
heart itself was the chief seat of disease; reformation must
have commenced where corruption was most inveterate: nor,
until certain great principles should be reclaimed, and the
Bible and its truths restored—a result necessarily fatal to a
system which was founded on their perversion, and which
was safe only in their suppression—could any reformation be
either radical or permanent.
"Adrian, the successor of the refined and luxurious Leo,
gave infinite disgust by the severity of his manners, and his
sincere desire to see some sort of reformation ; and his long
catalogue of abuses which he wished to be corrected, deli-
vered in at the diet of Nuremburg (and inconsistently ac-
companied with loud calls for the violent suppression of the
Reformation), was never forgiven by his own adherents.
The Church,' said he, 'stands in need of a reformation, but
we must take one step at a time.' Luther sarcastically re-
marked—' The Pope advises that a few centuries should be
permitted to intervene between the first and second step.'
" Hence we may see the comparative futility of the small time-
serving expedients of Erasmus. His satire, bitter as it was,
was not directed against the heart of the system—he waged
war only with the friars. Not that we undervalue his la-
bour : as a pioneer be was invaluable. Nor, if we except
Luther, Melancthon, and Zwingle, do we know any man
who really effected so much for the cause of the Reformation.
The labours of Luther and himself terminated in one result;
the streams, however different, flowed at last in one channel—
' Uhl Rhodanus ingens mane prcerapido fluit
Ararque dubitans quo suns fluctus agat.'
" Such are our deliberate views of the character, labours,
and triumphs of Luther. We have been the more copious in
our account of them, that we may do what in us lies to ho-
nour his memory, at a period when there is a large party of
degenerate I rotestants, who. not content with denying the
unspeakable benefits which he conferred upon mankind, have
not hesitated to speak of him with contempt and contumely,
and in some cases to question the honesty of his motives and
the sincerity of his religion !"