The consideration of this question naturally introduces the subject of the public revenue of Sind. From the statements of Ibn Khur-dádba, Ibn Khaldún, and Ibn Haukal, we derive some valuable notices of the revenue of the 'Abbásides, with more especial reference to the period of Mámún's reign. Ibn Khaldún's table has been given by Von Hammer, in his Länderverwaltung, and to this additions have been made by Dr. Sprenger, from the very rare manuscripts of the other authors, both preserved in the Bodleian library. From these authorities combined, we are able to deduce some useful in­ferences respecting the comparative revenue of the different provinces of the Khiláfat. Thus, we find that the province of Sind yielded annually a sum of 11,500,000 dirhams, and 150 pounds of aloe-wood, Multán being, most probably, included, as it is not mentioned among the other provinces. Of the neighbouring provinces, Makrán is set down at 400,000 dirhams; Sijistán at 4,600,000 dirhams, 300 variegated robes, and 20,000 pounds of sweetmeats;* Kirmán at 4,200,000 dirhams, 500 precious garments, 20,000 pounds of dates, and 1,000 pounds of caraway seeds;* Tukháristán at 106,000 dirhams; Kábul at 1,500,000 dirhams, and 1,000 head of cattle, amounting to 700,000 dirhams more; Fárs at 27,000,000 dirhams, 30,000 bottles of rose-water, and 20,000 bottles of black currants;* Khutlan, in Hyátila, bordering on Balkh, at 1,733,000 dirhams; Bámián at 5,000 dirhams; and Bust at 90,000 dirhams.

These amounts are to be considered merely approximate, because the revenues, unless where they were assessed at a fixed sum, varied every year according to the abundance, or scarcity, of the crop.

It may, at first, admit of doubt, whether these sums represent land-tax merely, or all the taxes in the aggregate. Ibn Khurdádba and Ibn Haukal specially say “land-tax.” Ibn Khaldún uses the term “revenue.” This is the more remarkable, as it will be ob­served from the notes, that his statements contain the lowest sums. The two accounts, of course, refer to different epochs, and frequently to different limits, which were arbitrary and fluctuating, just as our Domesday Book, having been compiled by different sets of com­missioners, represents a different status in different passages, though the names of persons, classes, and tenures may be in every other respect identical. As an instance, in our Arabic record of these variations, we find it stated, under Fárs, that “Amrán bin Músa, the Barmekide, added Sind to this province, so the revenue amounted, after defraying all expenses, to 10,000,000 dirhams.” The re­mark in itself is not particularly intelligible, but its very obscurity makes it serve the better as an illustration. It is probable that, in so large an empire, the limits of the provinces were frequently subject to alteration, to suit the views and interest of favoured governors; and that they were also, without any such personal bias, sometimes fixed on an ethnical, sometimes on a geographical, basis. Another cause of variation has been suggested—namely, that the greatest part of what had been delivered in kind in the time of Márwán, to which Ibn Khaldún refers, was paid in money in the time of Ibn Khurdádba. This is probable, and is the natural course of fiscal transition all over the world.

But, after giving due weight to all these considerations, the sums set down against some of the provinces are so large—whether we take the higher or lower amount, or the earlier or later date—that we must conceive them to embrace the entire collections of every kind, and must be allowed the liberty of construing kharáj in its enlarged sense of ‘tribute,’ rather than its limited one of 'land-tax, —just, indeed, as it is so considered at the present day in Turkey.* The assessment upon Sind and Multán,—being 11,500,000 dirhams, or about £270,000,—must be considered moderate, if it is intended to comprise the land-tax, the poll-tax, the customs duties, and all miscellaneous items into the bargain; but it is not an improbable amount, when we contemplate the liberal alienations and reserves, which have been alluded to at the commencement of this Note, as well as the change in the value of money. Under the Tálpúrs, notwithstanding that many large and productive tracts were afforested by them, Sind is said to have occasionally yielded £400,000; and under the Kalhoras, tradition represents the revenue at the exaggerated amount of £800,000. At present, with security on all its borders, and tranquillity within them, it does not pay to the British Government more than £300,000, and the expenses have been hitherto more than double that sum. This deficiency, how­ever, cannot last long, for its cultivation and commerce are rapidly on the increase.

The Arab governors may be considered in the light of farmers-general, for they usually bound themselves to pay to the Khalif the sums at which the various provinces,—after allowance made for ordinary expenses,—were set down in the public register. Where the disbursements were left to their discretion, and where the revenues were not fixed, but dependant upon the seasons, we may presume that, on the plea of frontier wars, local services, and internal tumults, very little was ever remitted to the capital from the remote provinces of the empire; for the governors themselves were the judges of these necessities—the declaration of peace or war being left to their arbitrary determination and pleasure.

The ordinary revenue, which they were entitled to collect from the provinces committed to them, was derived from the land-tax, and from the capitation-tax upon those who had not embraced the Muhammadan religion; but there were many miscellaneous cesses besides, which, in the aggregate, yielded large returns, and con­tributed to swell their profits.

The land-tax was usually rated at two-fifths of the produce of wheat and barley, if the fields were watered by public canals; three-tenths, if irrigated by wheels or other artificial means; and one-fourth, if altogether unirrigated. If arable land were left uncul­tivated, it seems to have paid one dirham per jaríb, and one-tenth of the probable produce, but the statement is not clear upon this point. Of dates, grapes, and garden produce, one-third was taken, either in kind or money; and one-fifth (khums) of the yield of wines, fishing, pearls, and generally of any product not derived from cultivation, was to be delivered in kind, or paid in value, even before the ex­penses had been defrayed. One-fifth of the value of slaves and booty was reserved for the Khalif. The customs and transit dues, for which unbelievers had to pay a double rate, and the taxes on trades and manufactures, and handicrafts, were also important sources of public revenue.*

These taxes were according to the original institutes of 'Umar, when he assessed the Sawád, or cultivated lands of 'Irák; but, in course of time, they were everywhere greatly enhanced, even to one-half of the produce of the land, or rather according to the ability of the people to pay. In short, the rates above-mentioned were merely a nominal value put upon the land: for the collection of the revenues was, in many instances, left to rapacious farmers, who covered their contracts and benefitted themselves besides, at the expense of the cultivators. The same course of proceeding was observed by the agents of the Tálpúrs to the latest period of their rule in Sind, and was one of the chief causes which contributed to the impoverishment of the country.*

Moreover, the absence of an accurate measurement must have rendered all such assessments nugatory and fictitious; for it was only in the Sawád, above referred to, which was the small tract lying imme­diately around the future capital of the Khalifs, that there was any­thing like a detailed survey; and of that the merits were more due to their predecessors than themselves. Gibbon says, “the adminis­tration of Persia was regulated by an actual survey of the people, the cattle, and the fruits of the earth; and this monument, which attests the vigour of the caliphs, might have instructed the philoso­phers of every age.” In this, he is by no means borne out by the passage whlch he quotes as his authority from the Chorographia of Theophanes; and, moreover, an extended sense has been given to “Persia,” which really applies only to a remote corner of that large empire.*