The Bundi feud with the Rana is still unappeased, since the predecessor of the former slew the Rana’s father. It was an indefensible act, and the Bundi prince was most desirous to terminate it. He had no daughter to offer, and hinted a desire to accompany me _incog._ and thus gain admission to the presence of the Rana. The benevolence and generosity of this prince would have insured him success; but it was a delicate matter, and I feared some exposure from any arrogant hot-headed Rajput ere the scene could have been got up. The Raja Bishan Singh of Bundi is since dead [in 1828]; a brave and frank Rajput; he has left few worthier behind. His son [Rām Singh, 1821-89], yet a minor, promises well. The protective alliance, which is to turn their swords into ploughshares, will prevent their becoming foes; but they will remain sulky border-neighbours, to the fostering of disputes and the disquiet of the merchant and cultivator. Footnote 3.4.31: Sim—Kankar. Footnote 3.4.32: A salutation, only sent by a superior to an inferior. Footnote 3.4.33: The kitchen is large enough for a fortress, and contains large eating halls. Food for seven hundred of the prince’s court is daily dressed. This is not for any of the personal servants of the prince, or female establishments; all these are separate. Footnote 3.4.34: Dagobert commended his wife and son Clovis to the trust of Ega, with whom she jointly held the care of the palace. On his death, with the aid of more powerful lords, she chose another mayor. He confirmed their grants for life. They made his situation hereditary; but which could only have held good from the crowd of imbeciles who succeeded Clovis, until the descendant of this mayor thrust out his children and seized the crown. This change is a natural consequence of unfitness; and if we go back to the genealogies (called sacred) of the Hindus, we see there a succession of dynasties forced from their thrones by their ministers. Seven examples are given in the various dynasties of the race of Chandra. (See Genealogical Tables, No. II.) [The above is in some ways inaccurate, but it is unnecessary to correct it, as it is not connected with the question of premiers in Rājputāna: see _EB_, xvii. 938.] Footnote 3.4.35: