92 H. Beveridge —Major Francklins description of Gaur. [No. 2, 
chief of Dinajpur. So far as I can see, the only difference between 
Francklin and Buchanan is that Francklin ends with the word “ pro¬ 
vince, ” whereas Buchanan adds the words, “ as I shall afterwards have 
occasion to show.” The Chronological Table too, given by Francklin, is, 
word for word, the same as that given in Appendix N., p. 28, of the 2nd 
Yol. of Eastern India. Even the heading and the memorandum at the 
foot are the same. The very mistakes are the same in both. For in¬ 
stance, in both, the Hindu king is called Rae Lukhmeesey, and the 
duration of his reign is given as eight years, though in the column of 
dates he is said to have reigned from 510-590, H. S. In Francklin’s table 
the eight has been corrected into eighty , but this has been done in pencil, 
and apparently at some subsequent time. In order to clear the matter up 
I have referred to the Buchanan MSS. The account of the Muhamma¬ 
dan rulers of Gaur is to be found there in the Dinajpur volume, I, pp. 
72-83. It is headed, “ Part 2nd. Muhammadan Government,” and is 
word for word as in Montgomery Martin. There is no reference to Bucha¬ 
nan having borrowed it from Francklin or from any one else. The 
Chronological Table is in the 2nd volume of the Dinajpur MSS., and is 
in the Appendix, pp. 2-10. It, too, is word for word the same as Franck¬ 
lin, except such insignificant changes, as putting the word “ Memorandum ” 
for Francklin’s phrase “ Conclusive remark.” There is no reference to 
its having been obtained from Francklin, but there can be no doubt of 
the fact, for at the end of the Memorandum (in the Buchanan MS.) we 
have the words “ True Copy,” and the initials “ W. F.” in Francklin’s 
own handwriting. It is clear then that Buchanan got the table from 
Francklin, and I have no doubt that he got the descriptive account also. 
But I do not suspect Buchanan of plagiarism. He was an honest man, 
and a friend of Francklin They must have explored Gaur at about 
the same time, though I do not think that they visited it together; for in 
a note to his journal, Francklin remarks that after his return he was 
informed by his friend Dr. Francis Buchanan, that what he called ‘black 
marble ’ was in reality hornblende. It is very likely that the circum¬ 
stance of their being engaged in the same line of enquiry has led to 
the appearance of Francklin’s papers in the Buchanan MS. Francklin 
tells us at the end of Section I, of his account of Gaur, that the historical 
memorandum “is translated from some MSS. materials procured through 
the kindness of Mr. Ellerton, of the factory at Goamalty, a gentleman 
who unites business with science and a love of the arts, and whose 
polite hospitality to us during our stay at his mansion entitles him to 
every consideration and thanks.” 
To the Table is appended, what is called, a “ Conclusive remark,” 
and which, with unimportant verbal differences, is the same as Buchan¬ 
an’s “ Memorandum. ’ ’ 
