The chivalrous spirit that has moved Mr. Kincaid to make his defence of the Rani of Jhansi (Journal, 1943, p. 100) will be appreciated. Chivalry, however, is not sufficient reason for the reversal of an opinion generally recorded by historians. Mr. Kincaid seeks to show that the Rani was not a rebel and had nothing to do with the massacre of the English at Jhansi in the Mutiny of 1857. In arriving at this conclusion he relies on a letter written in 1889 by a Mr. Martin to the adopted son of the Rani, which states that he was saved from the massacre by the Rani, and asserts that she had nothing to do with it and actually supplied food to the garrison before their surrender. Mr. Kincaid accepts this statement as reliable and dismisses as based on hearsay the evidence of the official narrative compiled by Captain Pinkney in November, 1858. Mr. Martin's name does not occur in any of the reports to which we have access, and before accepting his assertion about the Rani's actions it would be desirable to know more about him. It is curious that he was not with his compatriots in the fort. As his letter states that he took messages from the Rani to officials he was perhaps in her service. On one point he is not borne out by the official narrative. Mr. Martin says that the Rani also saved another Englishman and a lady. The official narrative states that Mrs. Mutlow concealed herself in the town disguised as an Indian, and that a Mr. Crawford left the fort on the night of 7th June and made his way to Samthar. In neither case does the Rani appear to have given any help.