claim cousinship with the select caste of former sovereigns; and the visible embodiment of temporal sovereignty in Turkestan was this very title of Khan, which has been so much abused in its application. It is wrong, in a strict sense, to apply the title of Khan to Yakoob Beg, although he undoubtedly made use of it during the last three years of his reign; but as a matter of mere convenience, it is also misleading. On the stage of Asiatic politics there is another Yakoob Khan, who is, by descent, a Khan, and possesses qualities not less eminent than did his namesake in Eastern Turkestan. Confusion was often caused by the confounding of one of these personages with the other, whereas if each had been defined by his legitimate title, there would have been no misunderstanding. Towards the close of the year 1873, the Seyyid Yakoob Khan, who, by descent, could claim the title which was not his uncle's, returned to India, where he found that the English mission was a few days ahead of him on its journey to Kashgar. The Indian government had, in the meanwhile, appointed Mr. T. Douglas Forsyth as their envoy to Kashgar once more, and, during the summer of 1873, preparations were busily in progress for the important embassy that was to counteract the adverse effects of Baron Kaulbars' treaty. As this is the turning-point in Anglo-Kashgarian relations, it is necessary to follow it in considerable detail. Upon Mr. Forsyth's embassy depends the whole fabric of our policy in, and intercourse with, Eastern Turkestan during the past four years. In fact, but for Sir Douglas Forsyth's Report and Treaty, even Mr. Shaw's interesting volume and intrepid journey would have failed to have preserved the vitality of our interest in Kashgar and its ruler.