Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/269

 1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 261 various institutions which are now comprehensively included under the term ' local government ' in the United Kingdom and other coimtries of modern Europe. In his view the former are so many spontaneous ' mani- festations of the democratic principle ', while the latter are ' creations of the central government ' which ' owe their present form and constitution to a process of decentralization '. But surely this antithesis of India's past and Europe's present is scarcely to the point when the question to be decided is whether or not there was an essential difference in character between the institutions of India and Europe. Local government has a long history in Europe as well as in India ; and in regard to its relations with the state it seems to have passed through similar phases of development. An English reader of this volume, for example, will find many interesting parallels between the guilds and corporations of India as described by Dr. Mookerji, and those of his own country as their history has been traced from the eleventh century onwards. The objects of these institutions were identical in both cases, viz. mutual protection and the maintenance of privileges ; and English history is full of instances of the tenacity with which these privileges were guarded against the encroachments of the state. It is, therefore, difficult to understand on what grounds Dr. Mookerji claims for the Indian systems of local government a distinct character of their own, especially as he adds in a foot-note : Of course, the writer is aware that in many respects there is a remarkable approxi- mation between early and mediaeval conditions of local government in England and those prevailing in ancient India (p. 6, n. 2). The passage quoted earlier in this notice seems also rather to minimize the power of the king. According to the ancient theory as expounded in the law-books, the protection of his subjects was only one of his functions. It was his duty to inquire into the laws of castes, districts, guilds, and families, and to see that each of these sections of the community fulfilled its particular duty (Manu, viii. 41, quoted on p. 103). Such injunctions manifestly imply the duty of active interference whenever it may have been deemed necessary in the interests of religion or equity ; and of such interference on the part of the king instances are given in this volume. The king was, moreover, the supreme judge, and the ultimate authority in all questions of law. Justice was administered by a graduated series of courts ranging from ' family meetings ' to the high court of the king himself ; and in this series an appeal might be made from a lower to a higher court, ' but there is no appeal from the decision of the king, whether right or wrong ' (Asahaya, quoted on p. 124). It would appear, then, that the state and society in ancient India were more intimately connected than might be gathered from Dr. Mookerji's account. Many students of Indian history may be unable to accept some of Dr. Mookerji's conclusions ; but all will feel grateful to him for the real service which he has rendered to scholarship by collecting together and arranging in a convenient form the widely scattered evidence for the early history of local government in India. Apart from the historical interest of the subject, the value which the study of these institutions possesses as bearing on problems of the present time is obvious. E. J. Rapson.