andchildrensubjects。’
AndthenAustinquotesfromMontesquieuthedoctrinethat
’Politicalpowernecessarilyimpliestheunionofseveral
families。’
Theeffectofthispassagethenisthatasocietymaybetoo
smalltoadmitoftheapplicationofthetheory。Theemployment，
Austinsays，ofhisterminologywouldberidiculousinsucha
case。IbelieveIshallbeabletopointouttoyouthe
significanceofthisappealtooursenseofabsurdity，generally
aamostdangerouscriterion；butatpresentImerelyaskyouto
notetheseriousnessoftheadmission，sincetheformof
authorityaboutwhichitismade，theauthorityofthePatriarch
orPaterfamiliasoverhisfamily，is，atleastaccordingtoone
moderntheory，theelementorgermoutofwhichallpermanent
powerofmanovermanhasbeengraduallydeveloped。
Thereare，however，anothersetofcases，knowntousfrom
sourcesofknowledgeofwhichitisperhapsfairtosaythat
thoughAustinisinonesenseamodernwritertheywerehardly
openwhenhewrote——casesinwhichtheapplicationofhis
principlesisatleastdifficultanddoubtful。Itisfromno
specialloveofIndianexamplesthatItakeonefromIndia，but
becauseithappenstobethemostmodernprecedentinpoint。My
instanceistheIndianProvincecalledthePunjaub，theCountry
oftheFiveRivers，inthestateinwhichitwasforabouta
quarterofacenturybeforeitsannexationtotheBritishIndian
Empire。Afterpassingthrougheveryconceivablephaseofanarchy
anddormantanarchy，itfellunderthetolerablyconsolidated
dominionofahalf-military，half-religiousoligarchy，knownas
theSikhs。TheSikhsthemselveswereafterwardsreducedto
subjectionbyasinglechieftainbelongingtotheirorder，
RunjeetSingh。Atfirstsight，therecouldbenomoreperfect
embodimentthanRunjeetSinghofSovereignty，asconceivedby
Austin。Hewasabsolutelydespotic。Exceptoccasionallyonhis
wildfrontier，hekeptthemostperfectorder。Hecouldhave
commandedanything；thesmallestdisobediencetohiscommands
wouldhavebeenfollowedbydeathormutilation，andthiswas
perfectlywellknowntotheenormousmajorityofhissubjects。
YetIdoubtwhetheronceinallhislifeheissuedacommand
whichAustinwouldcallalaw。Hetook，ashisrevenue，a
prodigiousshareoftheproduceofthesoil。Heharriedvillages
whichrecalcitratedathisexactions，andheexecutedgreat
numbersofmen。Heleviedgreatarmies；hehadallmaterialof
power，andexerciseditinvariousways。Buthenevermadealaw。
Theruleswhichregulatedthelifeofhissubjectswerederived
fromtheirimmemorialusages，andtheseruleswereadministered
bydomestictribunals，infamiliesorvillage-communities——that
is，ingroupsnolargerorlittlelargerthanthosetowhichthe
applicationofAustin’sprinciplescannotbeeffected，onhisown
admission，withoutabsurdity。
Idonotforamomentassertthattheexistenceofsucha
stateofpoliticalsocietyfalsifiesAustin’stheory，asa
theory。Thegreatmaximbywhichobjectionstoitaredisposedof
is，asIhavesooftensaidbefore，’WhattheSovereignpermits，
hecommands。’TheSikhdespotpermittedheadsofhouseholdsand
village-elderstoprescriberules，thereforetheseruleswerehis
commandsandtruelaws。Nowwecanseethatananswerofthis
kindmighthavesomeforceifitweremadetoanEnglishlawyer
whodeniedthattheSovereigninEnglandhadevercommandedthe
Commonlaw。TheCrownandParliamentcommandit，becausethe
CrownandParliamentpermitit；andtheproofthattheypermitit
isthattheycouldchangeit。Asamatteroffact，sincethe
objectionwasfirstadvanced，theCommonlawhasbeenlargely
encroacheduponbyActofParliament，and，inourownday，itis
possiblethatitmaycometoowethewholeofitsbindingforce
tostatute。ButmyOrientalexampleshowsthatthedifficulty
feltbytheoldlawyersabouttheCommonlawmayhaveonce
deservedmorerespectthanitobtainedfromHobbesandhis
successors。RunjeetSinghneverdidorcouldhavedreamedof
changingthecivilrulesunderwhichhissubjectslived。Probably
hewasasstrongabelieverintheindependentobligatoryforce
ofsuchrulesastheeldersthemselveswhoappliedthem。An
EasternorIndiantheoristinlaw，towhomtheassertionwasmade
thatRunjeetSinghcommandedtheserules，wouldfeelitstinging
himexactlyinthatsenseofabsurditytowhichAustinadmitsthe
appealtobelegitimate。Thetheoryremainstrueinsuchacase，
butthetruthisonlyverbal。
YoumustnotsupposethatIhavebeenindulginginamerely
curiousspeculationaboutafewextremecasestowhichthetheory
ofSovereignty，andofLawfoundedonit，willnotapplywithout
strainingoflanguage。Inthefirstplace，thePunjaubunder
RunjeetSinghmaybetakenasatypeofallOrientalcommunities
intheirnativestate，duringtheirrareintervalsofpeaceand
order。Theyhaveeverbeendespotisms，andthecommandsofthe
despotsattheirhead，harshandcruelastheymightbe，have
alwaysbeenimplicitlyobeyed。Butthenthesecommands，savein
sofarastheyservedtoorganiseadministrativemachineryfor
thecollectionofrevenue，havenotbeentruelaws；theyhave
beenoftheclasscalledbyAustinoccasionalorparticular
commands。Thetruthisthattheonesolventoflocalanddomestic
usageinthosepartsoftheworldofwhichWehaveanyreal
knowledgehasbeennotthecommandoftheSovereignbutthe
supposedcommandoftheDeity。InIndia，theinfluenceofthe
Brahminicaltreatisesonmixedlawandreligioninsappingthe
oldcustomarylawofthecountryhasalwaysbeengreat，andin
someparticulars，asItriedtoexplainonaformeroccasion，it
hasbecomegreaterunderEnglishrule。
Itisimportanttoobservethat，forthepurposesofthe
presentenquiry，thestateofpoliticalsocietywhichIhave
describedasIndianorOrientalisafarmoretrustworthyclueto
theformerconditionofthegreatestpartoftheworldthanis
themodernsocialorganisationofWesternEurope，asweseeit
beforeoureyes。Itisaperhapsnotunreasonableimpressionthat
Sovereigntywassimplerandmoreeasilydiscoveredintheancient
thaninthemodernworld。ThecriticofHobbesandAustin，whomI
beforequoted，writes，’ineverystateofwhichweread，whether
Greek，Phoenician，Italian，orAsiatic，therewasaSovereignof
somesortwhoseauthoritywasabsolutewhileitlasted；’andhe
addsthat，’ifHobbeshadtriedtowriteanimaginaryhistoryof
mankindhecouldnothaveconstructedonebetterfittedforhis
purposethanthehistoryofthefoundationandestablishmentof
theRomanEmpire。’Iputasideforawhiletheconsiderationof
theRomanEmpire，andmyreasonsfordoingsowillbecome
apparentafterwards；but，ifwegiveourattentiontoempiresat
allresemblingthatoftheRomansinterritorialextent，weshall
findthat，properlyunderstood，theyareveryfarfrom
correspondingtotheGreatLeviathanimaginedbyHobbes。Weknow
somethingoftheAssyrianandBabylonianEmpiresfromJewish
records，andsomethingoftheMedianandPersianEmpiresfrom
Greekrecords。Welearnfromthesethattheywereinthemain
tax-takingempires。Weknowthattheyraisedenormousrevenues
fromtheirsubjects。Weknowthat，foroccasionalwarsof
conquest，theyleviedvastarmiesfrompopulationsspreadover
immenseareas。Weknowthattheyexactedthemostimplicit
obediencetotheiroccasionalcommands，orpunisheddisobedience
withtheutmostcruelty。Weknowthatthemonarchsattheirhead
wereconstantlydethroningpettykingsandeventransplanting
wholecommunities。Butamidallthis，itisclearthatinthe
maintheyinterferedbutlittlewiththeeverydayreligiousor
civillifeofthegroupstowhichtheirsubjectsbelonged。They
didnotlegislate。The’royalstatute’and’firmdecree’which
hasbeenpreservedtousasasampleof’lawoftheMedesand
Persianswhichalterethnot’isnotalawatallinthemodern
juridicalacceptationoftheterm。ItiswhatAustinwouldcalla
’particularcommand，’asudden，spasmodic，andtemporary
interferencewithancientmultifarioususageleftingeneral
undisturbed。Whatisevenmoreinstructiveisthatthefamous
AthenianEmpirebelongedtothesameclassofsovereigntiesas
theEmpireoftheGreatKing。TheAthenianAssemblymadetrue
lawsforresidentsonAtticterritory，butthedominionofAthens
overhersubjectcitiesandislandswasclearlyatax-takingas
distinguishedfromalegislatingEmpire。
ThedifficultyofemployingAustin’sterminologyofthese
greatgovernmentsisobviousenough。Howcanitconducetoclear
thinkingtospeakoftheJewishlawascommandedatoneperiodby
theGreatKingatSusa？ThecardinalruleoftheAnalytical
Jurists，’whattheSovereignpermits，hecommands，’remains
verballytrue，butagainstitsapplicationinsuchacasethere
liesanappealtoahighertribunalofwhichAustinallowsthe
jurisdiction，oursenseoftheridiculous。
IhavenowreachedthepointatwhichIcanconveniently
statemyownopinionofthepracticallimitationswhichmustbe
giventothesystemoftheAnalyticalJurists，inorderthatit
maypossess，Iwillnotsaytheoreticaltruth，butpractical
value。TheWesternworld，towhichtheyconfinedtheirattention，
mustbeconceivedashavingundergonetwosetsofchanges。The
StatesofmodernEuropemustbeconceivedashavingbeenformed
inamannerdifferentfromthegreatempiresofantiquitysave
one，andfromthemodernempiresandkingdomsoftheEast，anda
neworderofideasonthesubjectoflegislationmustbe
conceivedashavingbeenintroducedintotheworldthroughthe
empireoftheRomans。Unlessthesechangeshadtakenplace，Ido
notbelievethatthesystemwouldeverhavebeenengenderedin
thebrainofitsauthors。Whereverthesechangeshavenottaken
place，Idonotbelievetheapplicationofthesystemtobeof
value。
Themostnearlyuniversalfactwhichcanbeasserted
respectingtheoriginofthepoliticalcommunitiescalledStates
isthattheywereformedbythecoalescenceofgroups，the
originalgrouphavingbeeninnocasesmallerthanthe
patriarchalfamily。Butinthecommunitieswhichcameinto
existencebeforetheRomanEmpire，andinthosewhichhavebeen
slightlyaffectedbyitornotatall，thiscoalescencewassoon
arrested。Therearesometracesoftheprocesseverywhere。The
hamletsofAtticacoalescetoformtheAthenianState；andthe
primitiveRomanStateisformedbythecoalescenceoftheminute
communitiesontheoriginalhills。InverymanyIndian
village-communitiestherearesignsofsmallerelementscombining
tomakethemup。Butthisearliercoalescencesoonstops。Ina
laterstage，politicalcommunities，wearingasuperficial
resemblancetotheRomanEmpire，andoftenofverygreat
territorialextent，areconstructedbyonecommunityconquering
anotheroronechieftain，attheheadofasinglecommunityor
tribe，subjugatinggreatmassesofpopulation。But，independently
oftheRomanEmpireanditsinfluence，theseparatelocallifeof
thesmallsocietiesincludedinthesegreatStateswasnot
extinguishedorevenmuchenfeebled。TheycontinuedastheIndian
village-communityhascontinued，andindeed，evenintheirmost
gloriousforms，theybelongedessentiallytothattypeof
society。ButtheprocessofchangebywhichtheStatesofthe
modernworldwereformedhasbeenMateriallydifferentfromthis。
Thesmallergroupshavebeenmuchmorecompletelybrokenupand