Note (63), page 48.

The Moguls are a branch, a tribe, or a clan of the Tatars; so say all well-informed contemporary historians and chroniclers; so say in particular the Chinese, who are the only sources for the early history of the Turks, the Moguls, and Tunguses; nations which, in general, from ignorance or levity, have been called Tatars—the Moguls only are Tatars. The Armenians write the name Muchal; in our text of Vahram, Muchan has been printed by mistake. That this people was called so from their country is quite new; and if this were the case, it would be still a question why the territory was called Mogul. There are sometimes such whimsical reasons for the names of places and nations, as to defy the strictest research and the greatest curiosity. The name of Mogul seems not to be older than Tshinggis, and Mr. Schmidt in St Petersburgh, derives the word from a Mongolian word, which means keen, daring, valiant. The ancient name of the Moguls, as it is given by the native historian Sätzan, is, I am afraid, only a mistake of this ignorant chieftain. His whole history of the Moguls is only a very inaccurate compilation from Chinese authors, and the unlettered Mogul may have taken the appellative expression pih teih 8539, 10162, or pih too 10313, 8539, “northern barbarians” or “northern country,” for the proper name of his forefathers. Long before the Moguls, the Chinese became acquainted with some barbarous tribes called by different names, and also Mo ho; but the Chinese authors, who are so accurate in giving the different names of one and the same people, never say that the Mung koo, who are also written with quite different characters, are called Mo ho, or vice versâ. These Mo ho are described as quite a distinct people, with a particular language, divided into different clans or kingdoms. There is an interesting description of this people under the name of Wŭh keih 14803, 5918, in the Encyclopædia of Matuanlin, Book 326, p. 146. The same author says, in the sequel of his great work, that the Kitans have nearly the same customs (sŭh 9545) as the Mo ho, but he does not say that they are of the same race of people.—Matuanlin, Book 345, in the beginning. The different names of the Mo ho are also collected in Kanghi’s Dictionary under hŏ, a character not to be found in Morrison’s Tonical Dictionary; it is composed out of the rad. 177, and the sound giving group hŏ, 4019, and there also exists no passage saying Mo ho and Mung koo are one and the same people.