244 



year, until a greater revenue be offered by another 

 person/ 



f 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 Eartli, 

 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/' 



{f 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 "a right of pro- 

 perty co-ordinate with the non-existence of a deter- 

 mination not to exclude other authority." 



" IF a potent subject be able, independent of the 

 king, to resist invaders, and even to seize the lands 

 of others; shall his property be deemed independent 

 of the king? No; for that subject ought to be 

 punished by the king, if he transgress the law : but, 

 if the sovereign be not able to inflict punishment 

 on him, even he is king." 



