43 G 
Proceedings of the Asiatic Societg. 
[No. 4, 
2. From Baboo Gopee Nauth Sein, Abstracts of Meteorological 
Observations taken at the Surveyor General’s Office, Calcutta, for 
March and April last. 
3. From Mr. E. C. Bayley, some remarks on certain coins recent¬ 
ly procured for the Society from Captain Stubbs. 
Mr. Bayley remarked that the whole collection obtained from Cap¬ 
tain Stubbs had not as yet been fully examined, but that he would 
make -some observations on a few of them which appeared to him 
especially worthy of notice. 
Two of these were gold coins of Malwa, the first a fine one of 
Mahomed Shah, the son of Hoshung Shah. 
It bore on the obverse the titles of that King “ al Sultan ul Azim 
—Taj ud dunia wa uddin Abul Mozufferon the reverse, “ Moliamud 
Shah bin Hushung Shah ul sultan” and round the margin the name of 
the coin “ al Sikali,” the mint Shadiabad or Mandoo, and the 
date 840. 
As to the latter it was curious that Ferishtah quoting the Tari- 
khi Alfi in two places gives dates which place the death of this 
sovereign about two months before the close of 839, A. H. This point 
is given with much circumstantiality and detail, so as to show that it 
is no mere clerical error. 
The other coin which was somewhat similar in its reverse appear¬ 
ance is of considerably later date. 
The obverse inscription ran thus : “ul Sultan ul Azim bin Ghieas 
uddunia wa uddin Khilji” (bin ?), Abul Mozuffer Mahmood Shah 
Khuld Allah Khalafalu. 
The reverse contained (imitating the coins of Alaudin Khilji of 
Dehli) “ Sekunder ul Sani Yamin ul Khalafat Nasir Amir ul mominin.” 
The reverse margin gives the same legend as the other coin, but the 
date which was imperfect was either 908 or 909. 
The next three coins were coins of the earlier Khalifs. 
No. I. was a coin of the Abbaside Khalif al Mahdi and was struck 
at Bagdad in 162 A. H. It is described and figured as No. XXIII. in 
Marsden’s Numismata Orientalia. 
The others were both apparently of Haroun al Rashid, dated re¬ 
spectively 19 ? and 192. The date on the first named coin, however, 
was somewhat rubbed and dubious, and the name of the mint was 
also unfortunately imperfect. This was the more to be regretted as 
the name of the mint seemed to be a new one. 
