sion on the part of the
sovereign, and is a strong piece of evidence that in many ways Yakoob
Beg was a mixture of contradictions. We can scarcely persuade ourselves
that he was aware of these occurrences, and yet how could he be ignorant
of them?

In addition to the _Ushr_ there was another tax on home produce, viz.,
the _Tanabi_, or tax on land devoted to the production of vegetables or
fruit. The Tanab is, by the way, a lineal measure of forty-seven yards,
and a Tanabi is a piece of land forty-seven yards square. On this extent
of land cultivated for vegetables, or fruit, a small tax was raised.
More than any other tax did this vary according to the character of the
district, and to the quality of the year's crop. It was seldom less than
a shilling a Tanabi, even in the least renowned district, whereas in
some parts, in good years, it was five shillings, or even more. Here
again, however, the middleman interfered, and exacted as much as he saw
there was any possibility of his obtaining. This tax undoubtedly ought
to have produced a large sum, as a larger portion of the soil is laid
out as fruit and vegetable gardens than for crops; but whether it was
more difficult to raise, or there was more peculation _in transitu_ from
the tax-payer to the imperial exchequer, it is certain that we hear much
less of this tax than we should be disposed to imagine. The two great
taxes on home productions were therefore a corn due and a fruit due. The
rate was not in itself excessive, and could be paid by any community
without embarrassment. It is uncertain to what extent the avarice of the
officials had made the conditions of these two taxes more onerous,
although, on the most favourable supposition, the citizen was mulcted in
no inconsiderable sum. A more serious question for the ruler was, how
did it affect his own position with regard to his subjects? Did Yakoob
Beg appear in the eyes of the Kashgari as an exacting and oppressive
tyrant on account of these heavy impositions?

It is impossible to speak on this point with any degree of certainty,
but it is only natural to expect that such was the case. No tiller of
the ground can feel grateful to a sovereign who required him to hand
over almost one-third of his receipts before he made use of one penny of
them, even for the payment of his rent. It is scarcely probable that
Yakoob Beg approved of such enormous profits going to his officials;
but, that having tolerated petty exactions