Instead of one treasury, into which all revenues should come and out of which all disbursements should be made, there were fifteen or more bureaus which received, and as many which spent; and some of those which both received and spent were, except for the oversight of the first bureau, practically independent institutions. A distinct tendency toward decentralization of management is manifest. Whatever could be set off by itself was made as nearly independent as possible, subject only to inspection and supervision. This policy undoubtedly resulted from the despotic character of the government. Since one man, the founder of a despotic state, can attend to only a limited number of duties, he is forced, as his power develops, to assign more and more responsibilities to subordinates. The method which most relieves the central management is to entrust definite duties to definite groups of men, to support these with sufficient revenues, and then to leave them to themselves. If things go wrong in any department, the central authority intervenes, punishes severely those who were responsible, sets things to rights forcibly, and again leaves the department to itself. The system is very dangerous unless the central management can be kept constantly strong and able to assume full control promptly and effectively. This was the case in the Ottoman Empire until after the time of Suleiman. A yet stronger tendency toward decentralization appeared in connection with local government. Each _Beylerbey_ had his own _mufti_, _reis effendi_, and _defterdar_, with a considerable body of clerks, who advised him, recorded his decisions, attended to the revenues from the estates assigned for the support of his household, and kept account of the fief-holders in his dominion.[579] Each _Sanjak Bey_ again had his group of assistants, with similar duties on a lesser scale.[580] Some generations later the extension of this decentralization was to become a great evil. The duties of the bureaus of the treasury department reveal clearly the limited purposes and activities of the Ottoman government. The support of the Ruling Institution as standing army, court, and government was provided for; the revenues assigned by former sultans and by private individuals to the support of the Moslem Institution in its religious and charitable aspects were supervised; the navy was provided for; and the _Khan_ of the Crimea was pensioned. But nothing was done for the great mass of the population. They were expected to furnish the means for these activities; and the duty of the most conscientious sovereign was fully performed if he provided that they should labor unmolested, and should not be burdened with taxation beyond their ability to pay. Under a strong ruling hand the Ottoman system easily maintained order through the standing and feudal armies, but it did not so easily regulate the burden of taxation. This subject deserves special consideration. TAXATION IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE[581]