It is bounded on the N. by the district of Mathurá; on the E. by the Manipuri and Etâwah districts; on the S. by the Gwalior territory and the Dholpur state; and on the W. by the Bhartpur territory. Its area in 1872 was returned at 1873 square miles, and its population at 1,094,184 souls. The general appearance of the district is that common to the Doab, a level plain intersected by watercourses (nálás) and ravines. The only hills are the sandstone elevations in the west and south-west of the district. The principal rivers are the Jamná, Chambal, Uttangan, and Khari. The Jamná intersects the district, cutting off the subdivisions of Itmadpur and Firozábád; and a branch of the Aligarh division of the Ganges Canal passes through its northern parts. The general elevation of the district is estimated at from 650 to 700 feet above the level of the sea. The soil is sandy; many of the wells are brackish, and the local water supply is scanty. The failure of the periodical rains during the monsoon suffices to produce great scarcity, sometimes reaching the famine point. Only five towns are returned by the census as containing upwards of 5000 inhabitants, viz., Agra city (the capital of the district), population 149,008; Fathipur Sikrí, the site of Akbar’s famous mosque and palace, 6878; Firozábád, 14,255; Pináhát, 6571; and Saimrá, 5704. There are three municipalities, viz., Agra city, Firozábád, and Fathipur Sikri. These muncipalities derive their local revenue from octroi and from property within the municipal limits. The total municipal income and its incidence per head of the population are as follows :—Agra city, municipal income, £15,441, incidence per head, 2s. 0¾d.; Firozábád. £724— 1s. per head; Fathipur Sikrí, £366—1s. per head. The land revenue of the whole district was stated in 1871 at £162,882, and the gross revenue at £660,526. A scheme of rural instruction by means of indigenous schools was introduced in 1848. In 1871-72 there were 431 schools in the district, attended by 10,823 pupils, of whom 8820 were Hindus, 1293 Mahometans, and 710 of other denominations. The educational establishments within the city will be described below. The police force consisted of 1358 regular police in 1871, equal to one man to every 1 , 37 square miles of area, or one to every 805 inhabitants; and a village watch or rural constabulary of 1921 men, being one man to every 0∙97 square miles of area, or one to every 570 inhabitants. The chief crimes of the district, in common with the rest of the Doab, are burglary and theft.

Agra City, situated on the banks of the Jamná river, in 27° 10' N. lat., and 78° 5' E. long., is the head-quarters of the division and capital of the district. Formerly it was the provincial capital also, but since the mutiny the seat of government has been removed from Agra to Allahábád. The city, which is about 4 miles in length by 3 in breadth, sweeps along the banks of the river in a semicircle. The principal thoroughfares are a fine broad street intersecting the town from north to south; and the Strand, which runs along the banks of the river for a distance of 2 miles. This road measures 80 feet in width, and is said to have been constructed by the destitute poor during the famine of 1838. In 1846 the population of the city was estimated at 66,000; in 1872 it was ascertained to be 149,000. The conservancy and improvement of the town are in the hands of a municipal committee, which derives its funds principally from octroi duties. In 1871-72, the municipal income was returned as follows:—Octroi duties, £13,587; miscellaneous receipts, such as rent from land belonging to the municipality, &c., £1854—total, £15,441. The details of municipal expenditure were as follow :—Establishment and cost of collection, £1667, 12s.; police, £4041, 12s.; conservancy, £1749, 12s.; lighting, £672, 14s.; watering, £255,10s.; original works,£3561, 16s.; repairs,£1429, 2s.; education, £120; vaccination, £36, 6s.; dispensary, £360; charities, £240; grants to cantonments, museum, &c., £1465, 2s.—total, £15,599, 6s. The principal educational establishment in Agra is the Government College, a handsome building, situated in the civil lines a short distance from the town. It was established in 1820; in 1872 it contained 385 pupils. The other chief schools are the St John’s College, established by the Church Missionary Society in 1854; the Victoria College, established in 1862; and St Peter’s Catholic College. These three colleges in 1872 had 643 pupils on their rolls. There is also a medical college, founded in 1853. The total number of students admitted into it during the sixteen years from 1855 to 1870 inclusive, was 1168, of whom 235 passed the prescribed examination and received appointments in the government medical service. The Agra fort has a very imposing appearance, but is of no great strength. It occupies a large space of ground on the banks of the river, enclosed by high walls and towers of red stone. The fortress was constructed by the Emperor Akbar in the latter part of the 16th century, and exceeds a mile in circuit. In 1803 the place was held by the Marhattás; but being invested by Lord Lake’s army, it surrendered after a day’s bombardment. During the mutiny of 1857 it formed a place of refuge for the European and Christian community of Agra, and was threatened by the insurgent sepoys. The buildings of most note within the walls of the fort are the palace and hall of audience of Sháh Jahán, and the Motí Masjid, or “Pearl Mosque.”

“In the centre of the palace,” says Mr Fergusson in his History of Architecture, vol. ii., pp. 699-700, “is a great court 500 feet by 370, surrounded by arcades, and approached at the opposite ends through a succession of beautiful courts opening into one another by gateways of great magnificence. On one side of this court is the great hall of the palace, the Díwáni-Khás, 208 feet by 76, supported by three ranges of arcades of exquisite beauty. It is open on three sides, and with a niche for the throne at the back. This hall is now used as an arsenal. Behind it are two smaller courts, the one containing the Díwáni-Am or hall of private audience, the other the harem. The hall in the former is one of the most elegant of Shah Jahan’s buildings, being wholly of white marble inlaid with precious stones, and the design of the whole being in the best style of his reign.”

The Motí Masjid or Pearl Mosque is the most elegant mosque of Indian-Mahometan architecture. Mr Fergusson describes it as follows :—

“Its dimensions are considerable, being externally 235 feet east and west, by 190 feet north and south, and the courtyard 155 feet square. The mass is also considerable, as the whole is raised on a terrace of artificial construction, by the aid of which it stands well out from the surrounding buildings of the fort. Its chief beauty consists in its courtyard, which is wholly of white marble from the pavement to the summit of its domes. In design it somewhat resembles the great Dehli mosque, except that the minarets are omitted, and the side gateways are only recesses. The western part, or mosque properly so called, is of white marble inside and out; and, except an inscription from the Kuran inlaid with black marble as a frieze, has no ornament whatever beyond the lines of its own graceful architecture.”

Agra, however, is even more famous for the Táj-Mahal, a splendid mausoleum built by the Emperor Sháh Jahán for the remains of his favourite wife, Mumtázá Mahal, and where he himself is also buried. The building is of white marble, with four tall minarets of the same material, one at each corner. The whole rises from an elevated marble terrace. The following account is extracted from Mr Fergusson’s History of Architecture, pp. 692-694:—

“The enclosure, including the gardens and outer court, is a parallelogram of 1860 feet by more than 1000 feet. The outer court, surrounded by arcades and adorned by four gateways, forms an oblong, occupying in length the whole breadth of the inclosure, by about 450 feet in depth. The principal gateway, measuring 110 feet by 140, leads from the court to the gardens, which, with their marble canals and fountains and cypress trees, are almost as beautiful as the tomb itself. The tomb stands on a raised platform 18 feet high, faced with white marble, and is exactly 313 feet square.

At each comer of this terrace stands a minaret 133 feet in height, and of the most exquisite proportions—more beautiful, perhaps, than any other in India. In the centre of thé marble platform stands the mausoleum, a square of 186 feet, with the comers cut off to the extent of 33 feet 9 inches. The centre of this is occupied by the principal dome, 58 feet in diameter and 80 feet in height, under which is an inclosure formed by a screen of trellis-work of white marble, a chef-d'oeuvre of elegance in Indian art. Within this stand the two tombs. These, however, as is usual in Indian sepulchres, are not the true tombs; the bodies rest in a vault level with the surface of the ground, beneath plainer tombstones placed exactly underneath those in the hall above. In each angle of the building is a smaller dome of two storeys in height, 26 feet 8 inches in diameter, and connected by various passages and halls. The light to the central apartment is admitted only through double screens of white marble trellis-work of the most exquisite design, one on the outer and one on the inner face of the walls. In our climate this would produce nearly complete darkness; but in India, and in a building wholly composed of white marble, this was required to temper the glare, which otherwise would have been intolerable. As it is, no words can express the chastened beauty of that central chamber, seen in the soft gloom of the subdued light which reaches it through the distant and half-closed openings that surround it. When used as a pleasure palace, it must have been the coolest and the loveliest of garden retreats; and now that it is sacred to the dead, it is the most graceful and most impressive of the sepulchres of the world. This building is an early example of that system of inlaying with precious stones which became the great characteristic of the style of the Mughuls after the death of Akbar. All the span-drils of the Táj, all the angles and more important architectural details, are heightened by being inlaid with precious stones, such as agates, bloodstones, jaspers, and the like. These are combined in wreaths, scrolls, and frets, as exquisite in design as they are beautiful in colour; and, relieved by the pure white marble in which they are inlaid, they form the most beautiful and precious style of ornament ever adopted in architecture. It is lavishly bestowed on the tombs themselves and the screens that surround them, but more sparingly introduced on the mosque that forms one wing of the Taj, and on the fountains and surrounding buildings. The judgment, indeed, with which this style of ornament is apportioned to the various parts is almost as remarkable as the ornament itself, and conveys a high idea of the taste and skill of the Indian architects of this age.”

Tavernier, in his Travels (vol. iii., p. 94), mentions that 20,000 workmen were incessantly employed on this work during a period of twenty-two years. The tomb of the Emperor Akbar is contained in a splendid mausoleum at Sikandrá, a suburb of Agra city.

It was long a prevalent and undisputed opinion that the territories of the Hebrews, and of the republics of ancient Greece, were divided into equal portions, and that the object of such a distribution was to maintain a state of equality among all the members of the community. This, however, does not appear to be consistent with the distinctions of rank which we find admitted in Scripture (Josh. ix. 15; xxii. 14; 1 Sam. ix. 21, &c., &c.); and from a remark of Thucydides (i. 6), taken in connection with the statement of Aristotle (Polit. ii. 9), it may be legitimately inferred that property did not continue to be equally distributed at Lacedaemon. Distinctions of rank are clearly recognised in the legislation of Solon. Aristotle, in the Second Book of his Politics (chap. vi., Ac.), explains the constitutions of several of the ancient republics, and endeavours to show how the population is to be accommodated to this equal division of land; but it would be foreign to our object to review his arguments. It may be sufficient to remark that such an attempt to arrest the progress of enterprise is altogether inconsistent with the spirit of liberty which gave life and energy to the ancient republics; and that, though it might have been carried into effect under the despotism of Persia or the predominant rule of the kings of Macedonia, it was entirely at variance with the freedom of opinion which prevailed in Greece, and the stubborn resistance to control which animated the Romans after the expulsion of the kings. But granting that such a policy had been practicable, it would have been highly inexpedient. The ignorant Hindu might remain satisfied with the caste which nature had transmitted to him through successive generations, because his progenitors had been prevented from emerging from their obscurity; but the citizens of Greece and Italy, being themselves constituent members of the body politic, and not ignorant of the power thereby conferred on them, could not have been kept in check by the same principle of fear. Such an attempt, moreover, to prevent the acquisition of property would have obstructed the advancement of the arts of civilised life, would have extinguished those feelings of patriotism which led the Greeks so often to hazard their lives in defence of their country, and, by engendering discontent and exciting internal commotions, would have made them an easy prey to their enemies.

The expression Agrarian Laws, however, is more commonly applied to the enactments among the Romans for the management of the public domains (ager publicus); and to an account of these the remainder of our space must be devoted. It is a singular fact that, while almost every other subject connected with the Roman constitution had been successfully investigated and explained, the object and intention of the agrarian laws were entirely misunderstood by scholars for many centuries after the revival of letters. They were invariably represented as intended to prohibit Roman citizens from holding property in land above a certain fixed amount; and as authorising the division among the poorer citizens of the estates of private individuals when these exceeded the prescribed limit; thus legalising a system of plunder which would have been subversive of all social order. No such doctrine had, indeed, been admitted in any well-regulated state, ancient or modem; nor did anything analogous to it appear in the principles or practice of the Roman constitution; yet the expressions used by the ancient authors in reference to these enactments, and the disturbances to which they invariably gave rise, seemed to justify an unfavourable interpretation; and the opinion, when once propounded, was unconditionally received by successive generations of learned men, notwithstanding the many embarrassments and contradictions to which it led.

Romulus is represented as dividing his small territory among the members of his infant community at the rate of two jugera (each extending to two-thirds of an English acre) a-piece, as inheritable property. The whole district, however, was not thus assigned; one portion was set apart for the service of the gods and for the royal domains; and another was reserved as common land for pasture. The stock kept on the common land served to eke out a maintenance which two jugera could not otherwise have furnished to a family, and an agistment was paid to the commonwealth for the pasturage. It is probable that the same principle prevailed under the regal government, and that successive adjustments of the territory were made. Such a law existed among those of Servius Tullius. The equality of property thus established seems to have been considered as a fundamental principle of the Roman constitution; and the agrarian laws were regarded as the necessary means of wresting from the large proprietors the possessions which they had illegally acquired. Machiavelli and Montesquieu both participate in this mistake, and are far from condemning the agrarian laws, even when taken in the common meaning. The former alleges that the interest of every republic requires that the state should be rich and the citizens poor, and thus justifies the assumed spoliation; while Montesquieu receives it as an historical fact that Romulus adopted the principle of equality in his original distribution of the territory of Rome as the future ground of her strength, and that the tribunitian contests were but attempts to restore the original constitution. Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, b. iv. chap. vii. part i.) assents to the same interpretation, without, however, any expression of approval.

The correct interpretation of the agrarian laws must thus be considered as of modern date. Amidst the violence of the French Revolution a scheme for the equal division of the national property was advocated, with great popular favour, by some of the frantic leaders, who sought a sanction for their extravagances in precedents drawn from the ancient republics, and particularly from the agrarian laws of the Romans. The subject was thus invested with a new interest, and engaged the attention of Professor Heyne of Göttingen, who in 1793 (Opus. Acad. iv. 350-373) addressed to the members of his university a paper in which he successfully combated the opinions which, up till that time, had been entertained respecting them, and showed that their object had been entirely misunderstood. Other writers, as Heeren and Hegewisch, embraced and illustrated his views; but it was reserved for the acuteness and learning of Niebuhr fully to develop the theory which had been suggested, and to demonstrate the fact “that the agrarian laws of the Romans were in no case intended to interfere with or affect private property in land, but related exclusively to the public domain.” The theory of Niebuhr was too startling to meet with universal approval. It has accordingly been assailed by Rudorff, Dureau de la Malle (Econ. Polit. des Romaines), Puchta, and others, who have ingeniously and plausibly supported the opinions formerly maintained; but their arguments fail to produce conviction. (Class. Mus., vol. ii.) The language of Livy passim, when referring to the agrarian laws, is inexplicable unless the interpretation of Niebuhr be adopted: —

“If,” says Dr Arnold, “amongst Niebuhr’s countless services to Roman history, any single one may claim our gratitude beyond the rest, it is his explanation of the true nature and character of the agrarian laws. Twenty-four years have not yet elapsed since he first published it, but it has already overthrown the deeply-rooted false impressions which prevailed universally on the subject; and its truth, like Newton’s discoveries in natural science, is not now to be proved, but to be taken as the very corner-stone of all our researches into the internal state of the Roman people” (Hist. of Rome, vol. ii.)

In almost all countries the legal property of the land has been originally vested in the sovereign, whether we are to understand under that name a single chief, a particular portion of the nation, or the people at large. In the same manner, the property of all the land in a conquered country was held to be transferred to the sovereign power in the conquering state, and was assumed with more or less rigour as circumstances seemed to require. From the earliest times a portion of the Roman territory was thus regarded as the property of the state, and the profits arising from it were applied to the public service. The public domain (ager publicus) was at first small, but was gradually extended by the right of conquest till it embraced a large portion of the whole peninsula. In this process of extension the subjugated communities were frequently mulcted of a proportion of their lands, varying according to the alleged offence or the resistance which they had offered to the arms of the conquerors. Thus the Boii were deprived of one-half of their territory; the Hernici forfeited two-thirds; and the whole of the ager Campanus, the richest district in Italy, was taken from the inhabitants of Capua on the capture of their city after its revolt to Hannibal.

The lands thus acquired were disposed of in various ways. A portion of them was frequently sold by auction to meet the immediate necessities of the state, and was thus conveyed in perpetuity to the purchasers. The disposal of the remainder depended on the nature and condition of the land, and its position in reference to the bulk of the community. If in good condition and at no great distance from the city, it was frequently assigned, in small allotments of seven jugera (between 4 and 5 acres), to those of the poorer citizens, whose services in war gave them a claim upon the state; while in hostile districts and on exposed frontiers military colonies were planted, each colonist receiving a fixed quantity of land. In both these cases the land so assigned ceased to form part of the public domain, and became the property of the recipients. In some cases the land, after having been assumed as public property, was allowed to remain in the hands of the former owners, who became the tenants of the state for a fixed period, and paid a certain rent to the Roman exchequer.

The preceding remarks refer only to arable or meadow land, vineyards, or olive-gardens, which could be turned to immediate advantage. It is obvious, however, that in a country the greater part of which was acquired by conquest, large districts must have been laid waste, the inhabitants with their houses destroyed, and neither cultivators nor the means of cultivation left. Arrangements of a different description were therefore necessary for lands in this position. Wide ranges of country, fit only for pasture, had to be disposed of, and were available to those alone who were able to stock them with flocks and herds, and to provide slaves to attend to and protect their property. Hence it was usual for the state to invite persons possessed of the necessary means to enter upon the occupation of such lands on advantageous terms; an invitation with which the patricians, as being the wealthy class, could alone comply. The ordinary conditions were, that after the land was again brought into cultivation, the occupants should pay as rent one-tenth of the produce of the corn-lands, and one-fifth of the vines and fruit-trees, with a moderate rate per head for sheep and cattle grazing on the public pastures. The lands were not assigned for any definite period; the occupants were merely tenants at vdll, liable to extrusion whenever the state found it necessary to employ the land for any other purpose. It was a fundamental principle of Roman law that prescription could not be pleaded against the state; and consequently, though the right of occupancy might not only be transmitted from heir to heir, but might also be sold, no length of time could alter the precarious nature of the tenure by which the lands were held. The state always reserved to itself the power of resuming possession when it thought fit; and though such resumption might in many cases be attended by individual hardship, it was nevertheless justified by the original contract.

Much of the obscurity connected with the Roman agrarian laws has arisen from a misapprehension of the meaning of the words possidere, possessor, and possessio. These terms, when used in a strictly legal sense, denote merely occupancy by a tenant, and never imply an absolute right of property. The act of occupancy was termed usus, and the benefit derived by the state fructus.

“The ager publicus," says Professor Ramsay, “having been acquired and occupied as explained above, numerous abuses arose in process of time, especially among the tenants belonging to the second class. These being, as we have said, in the earlier ages, exclusively patricians, who at the same time monopolised the administration of public affairs, they were in the habit of defrauding the state, either by neglecting altogether to pay the stipulated proportion of the produce, or by paying less than was due; or, finally, by claiming, what was in reality ager publicus, as their own private property; it being easy, of course, in the absence of all strict superintendence and of scientific surveys, to shift the land-marks which separated public from private property. Meanwhile the deficiencies in the public treasury were made up by heavier taxes; and the plebeians complained that they were impoverished by new imposts, while the lands belonging to the community, which they had acquired by their blood, if fairly managed, would yield a sufficient return to meet all demands upon the exchequer; or, if portioned out in allotments among themselves, afford them the means of supporting the increased burdens. These complaints, unquestionably founded in justice, were soon vehemently expressed, and were revived from' time to time more or less loudly, and enforced more or less earnestly, according to the state of public feeling and the energy of the popular champions. It is true that the wealthier plebeians soon became tenants of the ager publicus as well as the patricians; but although this circumstance materially strengthened the hands of the occupiers, it did not improve the condition of the poor, or make them less keenly alive to the injustice of the system against which they protested. (Manual of Rom. Antiq. p. 228.)

Assuming, then, that the agrarian laws had for their sole object the distribution and management of the public lands ager publicus), their effect must have been felt in two ways:-—(1.) In enforcing the regular payment of rent from the occupants, preventing them from exceeding the limits assigned to them, and compelling the surrender of portions for division among the poorer citizens; and (2.) In insisting upon the immediate application of newly-acquired territories to the establishment of colonies, or its assignment to individuals. It is obvious that the laws first referred to, as involving long-established interests, would necessarily lead to violent contests.

The first agrarian law, properly so called, was proposed and passed by Sp. Cassius Viscellinus, when consul, 486 b.c. (Liv. ii. 41, Dionys. viii. 76), but respecting the provisions of this we have no precise information. Cassius was himself a patrician, and we may therefore infer that the law did not encroach upon the just rights of the dominant class to which he belonged. It is not the object of this article to trace in detail the various measures which were proposed, and the agitations with which they were severally attended. Three such are recorded during the 4th century b.c. (Liv. iv. 36, 47, 48); but by far the most important measure of this class, and that which served as the model of nearly all subsequent agrarian laws, was that carried by C. Licinius Stolo, when tribune of the people, in 367 b.c. (Liv. vi. 42). The provisions of this law were: (1.) That no one should occupy more than 500 jugera (about 333 acres) of the public land; (2.) That none should have more than 100 large and 500 small cattle grazing on the public pastures; and (3.) That every occupant of the public lands should employ a certain proportion of free labourers in cultivating it. Niebuhr (vol. iii. p. 11, &c. Eng. transl.) has endeavoured to supply the other details; but these can be received merely as ingenious, and it may be successful, conjectures. For an able controversy as to thus law see Class. Museum, vol. ii.

After the excitement occasioned by the passing of the Licinian law had subsided, two centuries were allowed to pass with only a single interference (Valer. Max. v. 4, 5; Polyb. ii. 21) with the occupants of the public lands; and during that time large additions had been made to the possessions of the state by the confiscations consequent upon the second Punic war. In the meantime the wealthier families had extended their possessions greatly beyond the limits prescribed by the Licinian law; while the small proprietors had disappeared, and the poor continued to increase. In 133 b.c., Tiberius Gracchus proposed and carried a modification of the Licinian law (Liv. Epit. lviii.; Appian. i. 9), which his premature death prevented from being carried into effect; and a similar result attended the enactment of his brother (Liv. Epit. lx.) Both were set aside or eluded after the death of Caius. During the period which preceded the subversion of the republic various other laws were passed for the distribution of the public lands; but these it is not necessary to enumerate. It may be mentioned, in conclusion, as a significant fact, that the prominent advocates of the agrarian laws, Cassius, Licinius, and the Gracchi, all belonged to the class which would have been injured by their operation had they led to an undue interference with private property. (G. f.)