324 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. 



generations leave him free. Thus in Madagascar, &quot; in case3 

 where there is no law, custom, or precedent, the word of the 

 sovereign is sufficient.&quot; Among the East Africans, &quot; the only 

 limit to the despot s power is the Ada or precedent.&quot; Of the 

 Javans, Raffles writes &quot; the only restraint upon the will of 

 the head of the government is the custom of the country, 

 and the regard which he has for his character among his sub 

 jects.&quot; In Sumatra the people &quot; do not acknowledge a right 

 in the chiefs to constitute w T hat laws they think proper, or to 

 repeal or alter their ancient usages, of which they are 

 extremely tenacious and jealous.&quot; And how imperative is con 

 formity to the beliefs and sentiments of progenitors, is shown 

 by the fatal results apt to occur from disregarding them. 



&quot; The King of Ashantee, although represented as a despotic monarch 

 . . . . is not in all respects beyond control. He is under an obliga 

 tion to observe the national customs which have been hand&d down to 

 the people from remote antiquity ; and a practical disregard of this 

 obligation, in the attempt to change some of the customs of their fore 

 fathers, cost Osai Quiimina his throne. 5 &quot; 



Which instance reminds us how commonly, as now among 

 the Hottentots, as in the past among the ancient Mexicans, 

 and as throughout the histories of civilized peoples, rulers 

 have engaged, on succeeding to power, not to change the esta 

 blished order. 



469. Doubtless the proposition that a government is in 

 the main but an agency through which works the force of 

 public feeling, present and past, seems at variance with the 

 many facts showing how great may be the power of a ruling 

 man himself. Saying nothing of a tyrant s ability to take 

 lives for nominal reasons or none at all, to make groundless 

 confiscations, to transfer subjects bodily from one place to 

 another, to exact contributions of money and labour without 

 stint, we are apparently shown by his ability to begin and 

 carry on wars which sacrifice his subjects wholesale, that his 

 single will may over-ride the united wills of all others. In 

 what way, then, must the original statement be qualified ? 



