THE 131s AND l4tH CENTURIES 61 
One difficulty arises in interpreting this account. Revenue 
due from the peasants was assessed by Sharing, and con- 
sequently the ordinary Demand would increase automatically 
with every increase in produce resulting from the supply of 
water; at first sight then, there was no reason for a separate 
assessment. The water-right was claimed on the specific 
ground that the King was entitled to some return for his 
outlay; but the Sharing-method of assessment would of 
itself have yielded an adequate return. The point is not 
explained by the chronicler, but the explanation is to be 
found in the circumstances of the time. We have seen that 
the Valuation was not altered during the reign, and con- 
sequently the benefit of irrigation would accrue to the 
assignees; the State could hope to benefit only from the 
Reserved areas administered by the provincial Governors. 
If the Governors held on farming terms, that is to say, 
if they were liable only to remit fixed sums to the treasury, 
then the benefit of the canals would enure to them, and the 
King would in fact derive no income until the contracts were 
revised. The terms on which Governors held their provinces 
during this reign are not on record, but all incidental refer- 
ences to their position are consistent with their holding on farm- 
ing terms, and I think this explanation is, at least, probable. 
The reference of the water-question to jurists is not an 
isolated occurrence. In his general administration Firiiz 
endeavoured to follow the rules of Islamic law, and in 
regard to finance in particular he insisted! that no taxation 
should be received in the treasury which was not strictly 
lawful. In accordance with this principle, he abolished all 
miscellaneous cesses. Most of the examples given are of 
the nature of town-dues, but the inclusion of the grazing- 
tax seems to indicate that his orders were intended to relieve 
the villages as well as the cities from these imposts. This 
action had no permanent effect, for cesses of the same nature 
were abolished by Akbar, and again by Aurangzeb, but were 
still in existence at the opening of the British period; we 
may, however, infer that the orders were effective for the 
time, or, at the least, that Firtz tried to limit the burdens 
on the peasants to the regular revenue-Demand. 
! Futuhat, as in Elliot, iii. 377; Or. 2039, f. 3007