c. 1665.—"Il faut cent mille roupies pour faire un lek, cent mille leks pour faire un courou, cent mille courous pour faire un padan, et cent mille padan pour faire un nil."—Thevenot, v. 54.
1673.—"In these great Solemnities, it is usual for them to set it around with Lamps to the number of two or three Leaques, which is so many hundred thousand in our account."—Fryer, [p. 104, reading Lecques].
1684.—"They have by information of the servants dug in severall places of the house, where they have found great summes of money. Under his bed were found Lacks 4½. In the House of Office two Lacks. They in all found Ten Lacks already, and make no doubt but to find more."—Hedges, Diary, Jan. 2; [Hak. Soc. i. 145].
1692.—"... a lack of Pagodas...."—In Wheeler, i. 262.
1747.—"The Nabob and other Principal Persons of this Country are of such an extreme lacrative (sic) Disposition, and ... are so exceedingly avaritious, occasioned by the large Proffers they have received from the French, that nothing less than Lacks will go near to satisfie them."—Letter from Ft. St. David to the Court, May 2 (MS. Records in India Office).
1778.—"Sir Matthew Mite will make up the money already advanced in another name, by way of future mortgage upon his estate, for the entire purchase, 5 lacks of roupees."—Foote, The Nabob, Act I. sc. i.
1785.—"Your servants have no Trade in this country; neither do you pay them high wages, yet in a few years they return to England with many lacs of pagodas."—Nabob of Arcot, in Burke's Speech on his Debts, Works, iv. 18.
1833.—"Tout le reste (et dans le reste il y a des intendants riches de plus de vingt laks) s'assied par terre."—Jacquemont, Correspond. ii. 120.
1879.—"In modern times the only numbers in practical use above 'thousands' are laksa ('lac' or 'lakh') and koṭi ('crore'); and an Indian sum is wont to be pointed thus: 123, 45, 67, 890, to signify 123 crores, 45 lakhs, + 67 thousand, eight hundred and ninety."—Whitney, Sansk. Grammar, 161.
The older writers, it will be observed (c. 1600-1620), put the lakh at £10,000; Hamilton (c. 1700) puts it at £12,500; Williamson (c. 1810) at the same; then for many years it stood again as the equivalent of £10,000; now (1880) it is little more than £8000; [now (1901) about £6666].