1862.] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 319 



The chief difficulty in admitting this attribution is, that we are 

 distinctly told in Stewart's History of Bengal, who, however, does 

 not quote his authority, that Mahmood Khan succeeded his nephew, 

 whom he murdered in 940 A. H. ; and, secondly, that he died in 945, 

 after a reign, including the period of his deposition, of five years. 



This information is emphatic and precise. Mr. Laidlay does not 

 seem to have had Stewart's History before him, as he confounds this 

 Mahmood Khan with Mahmood, the son of Duria Khan Lohani, 

 the distinction between each of whom and Mahmood Khan Lodi, all 

 successively kings of Bengal at or about this period, is clearly drawn 

 in a note at page 131 of Stewart's History. Moreover the obverse 

 legend calls the king " Gheiasuddeen," a title which there is nothing 

 to show, as far as I know, that Mahmood Shah ever assumed, and 

 the word in the obverse legend, which Mr. Laidlay read as " Abool 

 Mozuffer," cannot, on the present coin, be so taken. I at first read 

 it as Ibn Toghlak, and for this reason was inclined to read the first 

 figure on the date as a Bengali seven, and so to throw the coin back 

 by two centuries, — considering the obverse inscription as that of 

 Mahomed bin Gheiasuddeen Toghlak of Delhi, who was also the 

 Suzerain Sovereign of Bengal, and believing the reverse to bear that 

 of Bheiram Shah, whom Mahomed Toghlak made king of Bengal at 

 Sanargaon in 725 or 726 A. H., and who died in 739 A. H. 



But I must confess that the concluding formula of the reverse 

 legend (Khallad Allah Mulk wa Sultanat) comports better with. the 

 later date, as it has I think been found hitherto on no coins earlier 

 than those of the Lodi Dynasty. 



Still the discrepancy of dates is almost too great to be accidental. 

 To Mr. Laidlay's reading, (Nazir Shahi) moreover of the central 

 legend the present coin gives little colour. 



Mr. Laidlay distinctly says that he had several specimens and 

 varieties of the coin before him while writing ; it is probable, accord- 

 ingly, that his attribution had better grounds than the sole coin 

 which he has figured, would afford. 



The attribution of the coins must therefore I think be considered 

 open to future revision. 



Bead a letter from Mr. Stainforth, requesting that his withdrawal 

 from the Society might be cancelled. 



Agreed to. 



2 n 



