1894.] H. Beveridge —Major Francklin’s description of Gaur. 91 
in speaking of the bodies o£ Husain Shah and his family as still lying 
there. The following is the account given in Glazier :—■ 
“ The Maqbara is a burying-place, built of bricks, the gates and 
walls of which are very curiously ornamented with figures and flowers 
impressed in the bricks when they are burned and. 
similar to the Dutch tiles in Europe, and which to this day appear to 
have received very little detriment from time or weather. From this 
place Captain Adams removed the two finest tombs in the city, said 
to contain two kings, named Husain Shall and Nasrat Shah. What be¬ 
came of the most principal parts of these tombs, I cannot learn, but I 
believe they are in Calcutta, and there are now by the waterside five 
pieces of black marble polished on two sides, twelve feet in length, two 
feet high, and two feet thick, which were part of them.” 
Probably it is one of these pieces which is described at p. 3 of 
Ravensliaw’s Gaur, where we are told that, “ On the road-side, between 
the palace and the Bhagirathi river, there now lies, split in twain, a 
vast block of hornblende, which, having been carried thus far, has been 
dropped and left, as broken, on the highway, to bear its testimony 
against the spoilers.” 
From a note to the translation of the Siyaru-l-muta akhirtn. p. 184, 
we learn that Captain Adams’s spoliation took place about 1766, and that 
when the royal tomb was opened by him, an ud-dan or censer, 
was found at the foot of the body. 
Francklin’s description of the palace follows immediately after that 
of Husain Shah’s tomb. The material portion of it, including the in¬ 
scription of Barbak Shah, has been given by Mr. Grote, /. c., pp. 18, 19. 
Francklin visited Mr. Ellerton at Goamalty, and notices the re¬ 
mains there of “ a very handsome mosque built of stone and brick; the 
only minaret remaining has a fanciful appearance. The remains of 
marble columns in the outside of the verandah of the building are still 
to be seen.” 
Although Mr. Grote’s extracts have been carefully made, and have 
perhaps made the publication of Francklin’s journal unnecessary, there 
is an Appendix to the latter which deserves notice. It contains a Chro¬ 
nological Table of the Muhammadan rulers of Gaur, and a Historical 
Memorandum regarding them. The interest of the memorandum con¬ 
sists in the fact that it is, word for word, the same as that given by 
Buchanan, and which is printed in Montgomery Martin’s Eastern India, 
Vol. II, 616-21. Even the spelling of the proper names is the same. For 
instance, in both, the name of the Hindu usurper, commonly called Raja 
Kans, appears as Gones, and he is described in both as Hakim of Dynwaj, 
with the parenthetical suggestion that he was perhaps a petty Hindu 
