consistent progress in the prosperity of the Empire. The increase in 1655 is explained by the addition of the tribute from the Deccan kingdoms. The decrease in revenue about 1660 and in 1707 in satisfactorily explained by the civil war and ensuing famine which accompanied Aurangzíb's accession in 1658, and the protracted campaigns and losses in the Deccan which preceded his death in 1707. The figures here given[1] are in excess of those stated by the late distinguished numismatist, Mr. Edward Thomas, in proportion an the rupee is here valued at 2s. 3d., instead of at his admittedly conventional estimate of 2s.
We may take it, therefore, that the revenue returns of the Mughal Emperors show a steady increase from about £19,000,000 towards the end of Akbar's reign, to over £40,000,000 when Aurangzíb was at the height of his power. The second disputed question here arises: Do these returns include every regular source of income, or do they merely relate to the revenue from land? The answer must be unhesitating: they represent only the land revenue, including, however, the tribute which took the place of the land-tax in those half-subdued States where the imperial collector did not penetrate. Bernier and Manucci distinctly state that the returns they quote relate only to the revenue from land, and, though the Native historians do not qualify their returns by any such
- ↑ I have neglected certain variations in the returns caused by the subtraction of the tax-gatherer's percentage, which amounted to 4 per cent. in Aurangzíb's time, but was higher under Akbar.
