Thirdly, we have the statement contained in Part II. of Baron Hügel’s work, p. 165, where we find Csoma’s name mentioned in a foot-note. Hügel calls him there his “friend;” but if we understand the Baron rightly, his remark will be taken rather as a reproach against Csoma for not furnishing the Baron with information regarding the names of the two Tibetan mountains Mer and Ser, which Csoma, always ready to impart all he knew, must have found himself unable to supply. There is an incident described in Baron Hügel’s work (vol. i. p. 303) which appears to us strange. It refers to the occurrence of the 18th of November 1835, when the Baron was at Srinaggur and met two Englishmen there. The Baron writes thus:— “I proposed to my English friends that we should erect something like a monument in memory of the travellers who preceded us in Kashmir.... The following inscription was proposed by me:— “‘Three travellers in Kashmir, the Baron Charles Hügel, T. G. Vigne, and Dr. Henderson, have caused the names of all the travellers who preceded them in Kashmir to be engraved on this black stone, namely, Bernier, 1663; Forster, 1786; Moorcroft, Trebeck, Guthrie, 1823; Victor Jacquemont, 1831; Joseph Wolff, 1832.’” Csoma’s name is not mentioned here; yet we have proofs that Csoma travelled in and through Kashmir on three different occasions before Hügel: first, immediately after he overcame the dangerous route through Central Asia and Afghanistan to the Punjab, namely, in 1822, in April and May; and again, on returning from Leh in July; and, for the third time, in the winter of 1822–23. Csoma reports in the letter to Captain Kennedy (para. 12), “I left Kashmir on the 2d May 1823, after I had passed five months and six days with Mr. Moorcroft.” These details give an account of Csoma’s travels in 1822 and 1823, showing that he spent very much more time in Kashmir than the Baron ever did, who devoted three months only to his journey in that country, twelve years after Csoma. Yet Csoma’s name does not appear in Baron Hügel’s list. We bring this forward for no other reason but that of adding another proof of the defective nature of Baron Hügel’s data. We have, therefore, been compelled to treat with suspicion the statements made by this author, there being much evidence to show that they are not made with the necessary exactitude. Corroborated statements, which happen to be found in the Baron’s notices of Csoma, including those contained in the Spicker’sche Zeitung, cited by the “Chronick der gebildeten Welt,” Band. III. (Carlsruhe, 1842), have been taken from the original English, and probably also French sources, by which alone we have been guided in this part of the biography.