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