departure of the Chinese might be amply repaired by the appearance of Russian and English merchants to supply the same place that they filled. If his aspirations were disappointed, and the _Zakat_ did not show any signs of possessing that elasticity which had been predicted, it is probable that in his impatience, heightened by the perception that foreign trade might lead to foreign complications, he did not give the scheme a sufficient time for a fair trial. His other sources of revenue, _Ushr_ and _Tanabi_, and the gold mines of Khoten, brought in a sum enough to meet the current expenses of the government and to maintain in his service as many soldiers as his recruiting officers were able to secure. But there was little if any surplus; and local improvements, and all outlay that might have been reproductive and for the benefit of the people, were strictly forbidden. The only works we can find constructed by him, with a view to the advancement of the interests of his subjects, were the merchants' _serais_, built in each city, and these were self-supporting. Yakoob Beg has no claim to being considered as a beneficent ruler. He was a military dictator, who had shown a rare power for inaugurating a rough system of government, and whose campaigns had always been singularly successful. As a ruler, showing a full appreciation of the wants of his people, and adopting the best possible measures to obtain them, he had no claims to consideration. Indeed, he could not be compared with the Chinese, who, however personal may have been their motives, certainly raised the state to a high pitch of material prosperity, and left many 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