114 



the terms of his assent. Nor should it be objected 

 that in this case property is not created, nor is effect 

 given to an existent property, but mere possession 

 as of a thing- pawned. This would be inconsistent 

 with the explanation of husbandman, as given by 

 CHANDESWARA and others ; that is, c owner of the 

 field/ " 



" A specific agreement should be made, when the 

 land is delivered, that it shall be enjoyed year by 

 year, until a greater revenue be offered by another 

 person/' 



" OTHERS hold, that the king- has no property in 

 the soil, nor power to dispose of the subject's abode, 

 because all have a right in the soil ; since the earth 

 was created for the support of living animals, as 

 expressed in the Sri Bhagavata : ' The Earth, 

 which GOD created for the abode of living creatures;' 

 and because MANU has only declared, that the sub- 

 jects shall be protected by the king." 



" BUT, in fact, without property in the soil, there 

 can be no certain rule for the protection of the 

 subjects." 



(C And if it be argued, that the positive necessity 

 of supposing a proprietary right, and the consequent 

 obligation on the king* to protect the inhabitants of 

 that country, of which he is proprietor, should not 

 be affirmed, because such property is not deduced 

 from positive precept ; we answer, the exclusion of 

 every other authority is naturally implied ; and it is 

 positively required, that there be c a right of pro- 



