Col. Lees and Sir H. M. Elliot are thus in direct antagonism; but if Sir Henry's judgment was correct, Subhán Ráí was the great plagiarist, and he must be deprived of the praise which Col. Lees has bestowed upon him. The discovery of the Mukhtasiru-t Tawáríkh makes it possible also that the author of the Siyar was veracious, when he said that he used the book of an old munshí. Still, his statement was disingenuous, for the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh could hardly have been unknown to him, and it would have been more honest to have made some direct reference to that well-known work. The censure cast by Col. Lees on the author of the Áráish-i Mahfil is still less deserved, for Sher 'Alí, in his title-page, states that his book was “derived from the contents of the Khulásatu-t Tawáríkh.” Like many other authors and translators, he has magnified his own labours, but the book is not a mere translation. To say nothing of the elegance of the composition, there is a good deal of additional matter in it, and it contains accounts of things which happened long after the date of the Khulásat, such as the establishment of the British Government, and the building of Calcutta.]*