120 CHANDRAGUPTA AND BINDUSAKA it is certainly the fact that the people of ancient India enjoyed a wide-spread and enviable reputation for straightforwardness and honesty. The general honesty of the people and the efficient administration of the criminal law are both attested by the observation recorded by Megasthenes, that while he resided in Chandragupta's camp, containing four hundred thousand persons, the total of the thefts re- ported in any one day did not exceed two hundred drachma^ or about eight pounds sterling. When crime did occur, it was repressed with terrible severity. Or- dinary wounding by mutilation was punished by the corresponding mutilation of the offender, in addition to the amputation of his hand. If the injured person hap- pened to be an artisan devoted to the royal service, the penalty was death. The crime of giving false evidence was visited with mutilation of the extremities, and in certain unspecified cases serious offences were punished by the shaving of the offender's hair, a penalty regarded as specially infamous. Injury to a sacred tree, evasion of the municipal tithe on goods sold, and intrusion on the royal procession going to the hunt were all alike capitally punishable. These recorded instances of severity are sufficient to prove that the code of crim- inal law, as a whole, must have been characterized by uncompromising sternness and slight regard for human life. The native law of India has always recognized agri- cultural land as being Crown property, and has admitted the undoubted right of the ruling power to levy a Crown
