ny enduring marks of their past
occupation. These two dominations, foisted on the Kashgari by the strong
arm, while each immeasurably superior to the Khoja claimants,
represented two distinct modes of governing a subject race. The Chinese
endeavoured to conciliate, and to make the necessity for their presence
felt by the people; the Athalik Ghazi was supremely indifferent to the
prosperity of his subjects, so long as they were willing to pay him the
tribute money, and to serve in his army. An exactly opposite result
might have been expected, for there was far more kinship between the
Khokandian adventurer and the Kashgari, than there was between the
Khitay and the Andijani. Admirers of Yakoob Beg may, of course, plead
that his rule had not acquired sufficient consistency to justify him in
tasking his strength by great undertakings, such as the construction of
roads and canals. In one respect he had not the labour at his disposal,
and he was, consequently, hampered by a difficulty that the Chinese were
free from. Still when we remember that all these works ought to have
been remunerative, and to have strengthened Yakoob Beg's individual
power, instead of taxing his resources, the excuse cannot be admitted as
entitled to our consideration. Yakoob Beg has claims only to be admired
for having given us something better than a repetition of the depravity
of the Khoja rulers, and of course among his coevals he is entitled to
far the highest place. If it is only asked for him that he should be
placed above them, no one can raise the slightest objection to it; for
beyond the shadow of a doubt, he was the most energetic and talented
ruler that had appeared among the Khanates for several centuries. But it
would be affectation to deny that a higher place than this has been
claimed for him; and before according his right to occupy it, the
evidence on which his claim rests must be sifted with the greatest care.
Even now I do not say that his claims are unproven; but that it is open
to doubt whether his work has not been exaggerated, I think must be
admitted by every one who has studied the course of his life in Kashgar.
It is absurd to talk of Yakoob Beg having been an equal of Genghis Khan
or of Timour, in any other way than that of showing that his personal
abilities were of a transcendent order. As a legislator and public
benefactor, it is fair to compare him with the Chinese, who possessed
some advantages over him, but who laboured