319 
18G2.] Proceedings of the Asiatie Societg. 
Tho 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 inOdO A. H. ; and, secondly, that he died in 915, 
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 “ Glieiasuddeen/’ 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, he 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 Glieiasuddeen 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. II. 
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 Sliahi) moreover of the central 
legend the present coin gives little colour. 
Mr. Laidlay distinctly says that lie 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. 
Itead a letter from Mr. Stainforth, requesting that his withdrawal 
from the Society might be cancelled. 
Agreed to. 
