held for themselves and the sacrifices no less than one-third of the lands of Egypt. But we learn from [510] Herodotus, that Sesostris, who ruled after Joseph’s ministry, restored the lands to the people, reserving the customary tax or tribute.[4.19.8] The prelates of the middle ages of Europe were often completely feudal nobles, swearing fealty and paying homage as did the lay lords.[4.19.9] In Rajasthan, the sacerdotal caste not bound to the altar may hold lands and perform the duties of vassalage:[4.19.10] but of late years, when land has been assigned to religious establishments, no reservation has been made of fiscal rights, territorial or commercial. This is, however, an innovation; since, formerly, princes never granted, along with territorial assignments, the prerogative of dispensing justice, of levying transit duties, or exemption from personal service of the feudal tenant who held on the land thus assigned. Well may Rajput heirs exclaim with the grandson of Clovis, “our exchequer is impoverished, and our riches are transferred to the clergy.”[4.19.11] But Chilperic had the courage to recall the grants of his predecessors, which, however, the pious Gontram re-established. Many Gontrams could be found, though but few Chilperics, in Rajasthan: we have, indeed, one in Jograj,[4.19.12] the Rana’s ancestor, almost a contemporary of the Merovingian king, who not only resumed all the lands of the Brahmans, but put many of them to death, and expelled the rest his dominions.[4.19.13] It may be doubted whether vanity and shame are not sufficient in themselves to prevent a resumption of the lands of the Mangtas or mendicants, as they style all those ‘who extend the palm,’ without the dreaded penalty, which operates very slightly on the sub-vassal or cultivator, who, having no superfluity, defies their anathemas when they attempt to wrest from him, by virtue of the crown-grant, any of his long-established rights. By these, the threat of impure transmigration is despised; and the Brahman may spill his blood on the threshold of his dwelling or in the field in dispute, which will be relinquished by the owner but with his life. The Pat Rani, or chief queen, on the death of Prince Amra, the heir-apparent, in 1818, bestowed a grant of fifteen bighas of land, in one of the central districts, on a Brahman who had assisted in the funeral rites of her son. With grant in hand [511], he hastened to the Jat proprietor, and desired him to make over to him the patch of land. The latter coolly replied that he would give him all the prince had a right to, namely the tax. The Brahman threatened to spill his own blood if he did not obey the command, and gave himself a gash in a limb; but the Jat was inflexible, and declared that he would not surrender his patrimony (_bapota_) even if he slew himself.[4.19.14] In short, the