438 Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. [No. 4, 
with smudgy inscriptions recorded on dilapidated stones, battered by 
the rains of centuries, written in characters new all but unknown, and 
in languages which had bacome obsolete, and the decypherment of 
which had to be effected by a series of guesses, should entertain 
opinions irreconcileable with each other. These, therefore, he did not 
wish then to dwell upon. He could not, however, allow that opportu- 
nity to pass without adverting to the three instances of “errors of 
omission” of which he stood charged. They were as injurious to him 
as they were unfounded, and he wished therefore to give them the 
earliest possible correction. The first instance, he observed, of which 
the General complained, was a discovery of his as to the identity of 
the Bhoja Raja of Gwalior with the great Bhoja of Malwa, noticed in 
the Rdjatarangint, which, it was alleged, had bsen appropriated to 
himself by the Babu without acknowledgement. 'The General, in his 
letter published in the 29th volume of the Journal (p. 395,) says—‘ Of 
the Gwalior inscriptions one of the most interesting is a record of 
Bhoja Deva, dated in 933 Samvat, both in words and figures, A. D. 
876. As this date agrees with that assigned to the great Bhoja of 
Malwa by Kalhan Pundit, viz., A. D. 883-901, there can be little 
hesitation in attributing this inscription to the famous Bhoja.” The 
epithets “great” and “ famous” used by the General (the latter in 
Italics,) coupled with the Bhoja of Malwa, leaves no doubt as to his 
having alluded to the hero of the Bhaja probandha, for to no other 
sovereign of Malwa could those epithets be correctly appled. To 
him, however, the Babu had made no allusion. In this paper on the 
Bhojas, he had pointed out the identity of the Bhoja of Gwalior with 
one of the two Bhojas of Kanouj, of whom General Cunningham had 
made no mention whatever, and not with the king, of that name, of 
Malwa, who, he maintained, lived a century after the Prince of Gwalior, 
and could not, therefore, have been identical. The accusation of mis- 
appropriation in connection with the Bhojas was, therefore, entirely 
unfounded. 
With regard to the second instance of error of omission it was 
remarkable, the Babu noticed, that in the same breath in which the 
General blamed him for adhering to the old reading of the Rohtas 
inscription, he accused him of having pirated his new reading. If he 
did one he could not do the other. The fact, however, was that he had 
done neither. He had to compare the history of the same line of kings 
