ing termed the “white rajahs” of Sarawak. Under the nephew,rnSir Charles Anthony Johnson, the territory expanded, and inrn1888 Sarawak was converted into a British protectorate. Thernlast rajah did not cede Sarawak to the British crown until 1946;rnhis position had been destabilized by the effects of Japanese occupationrnduring World War II.rnThis sense of helplessness, itselfrnfueled by the government’srnmonopolization of the means of force,rnis then used by the central state tornjustify suppressing still morernpersonal liberties and the rightrnto self-defense.rnDespite the success of the Brookes, opportunities for such activityrnbecame less common. They had flourished beyond thernfrontiers of empire, a world brilliantly captured in George Mac-rnDonald Fraser’s recent Flashman novels. Thus, in India, thernwillingness of the locals to turn to European weaponry and militaryrnmethods had provided careers for a number of Europeanrnsoldiers. The most spectacular was George Thomas, an Irishmanrnwho deserted the British navy in 1781 and rose, throughrnmilitary command in Indian armies, to independent control ofrna substantial region between Delhi and the Punjab by 1799.rnSuch opportunities disappeared as the regularity of 19th-centuryrngovernment swept across much of the world. In additionrnto authorized nonstate violence, unauthorized nonstate violence,rnparticularly piracy and privately organized expeditionsrndesigned to seize territory, was also in large part stamped out inrnthe 19th centur)’. This both demonstrated and enhanced thernability of states to monopolize power, and the European powers,rnespecially Britain, devoted much effort to suppressing piracy,rnespecially off China, in the East Indies, off British Columbia,rnin the Pacific, and in the Persian GulfrnThe banning of the slave trade and the subsequent measuresrntaken to extend and enforce the bans were also important examplesrnof moves designed to end authorized, and then unauthorized,rnnonstate violence. The British navy was especially activernin employing violence against the slave trade, particularlyrnfrom Africa to the Middle East. The European powers soughtrnto monopolize military force, both within their European territoriesrnand in their colonies, on land and at sea. An importantrnexample of a state establishing a monopoly of violence was therneffort to bring the Cossacks of both Ukraine and South andrnSoutheast European Russia under state control, which ultimatelyrnleft them vulnerable to the Stalinist tyranny. The redshirtedrnvolunteer force with which Giuseppi Garibaldi conqueredrnSicily and Naples in 1860 was absorbed into the Italianrnarmy, and in 1862, when he subsequently formed a privaternarmy to capture Rome, then an independent papal state, it wasrndefeated by the Italian army.rnMonopolization of violence was linked to state control ofrnsocieties, which was a gradual but insistent process. Europeanrnstates first sought to prevent the use by partisan groupsrnof organized violence for the pursuit of domestic political objectives.rnThey also took steps against feuds. At the personal level,rnthe activity of the state was initially less insistent, but measuresrnwere nevertheless taken to abolish —or at least tornlimit—dueling, and to restrict the ownership of firearms.rnMoves to restiict the ownership of arms were pursued in thern19th century, at the very time when there was an increasingrnemphasis on conscription and the availability of military reserves.rnGovernments were determined to control both thernpractice of mass recruitment and its consequences. Force wasrnused as never before, but it was force by and for governments.rnGovernments were particularly determined to monopolizernarms that had a battiefield capability. This was tiue both of artillery,rnfrom its initial development, and of flintlock muskets inrnthe 18th century. Furthermore, by the 16th century, most sophisticatedrnfortifications were under central government control,rnand, by the 18th, they all were. Even though personalrnweapons were of scant value against the increasingly powerfulrnarmies of the state, European states sought to control their ownership.rnGun contiol fused the regulatory ambitions of governmentrnand the antidemocratic nature oiancien regime Europe. Thus,rnonly those trusted by government were allowed to possessrnfirearms. Thanks to hunting, this had direct economic consequences.rnFor example, in Normandy, in order to protect thernmonopoly of hunting by the nobility, the peasantry was prohibitedrnfrom possessing arms. Under a regulation of 1766, a simplerndenunciation by a noble could lead to a peasant’s house beingrnsearched and the culprit jailed for three months withoutrnrecourse to the ordinary courts. In Poland the right to wear arnsword in public was restricted to the nobility. Hierarchy andrnthe contiol of the countryside was reflected in the limitations ofrnrights to hunting by the English Game Acts of 1485 and 1604.rnFreeholders lost ancient rights to hunt on their own land,rnthanks to the greater property qualifications introduced by thernsecond act. Thus, the American claim to the right to bear armsrnwas as much a declaration of social emancipation as of politicalrnfreedom.rnForce in the 19th century was increasingly concentiated atrnthe disposal of authority, especially the authority of the state.rnThus, in the 1860’s, a large army and the use of terror subduedrnpeasant opposition to the government in southern Italy. Professionalrnpolice forces increased state power. In Britain, a professionalrnpolice force replaced the yeomanry and the sometimesrnincompetent constables. Peel’s Mefropolitan Police Actrn(1829) created a uniformed and paid force for London. Thisrntrend was extended by acts in 1835 and 1839, and the Countyrnand Borough Police Act (1856) made the formation of paidrnforces obligatory. The new police largely replaced individualsrnas prosecutors in cases of criminal justice in England and Ireland.rnIn most of Europe, policing was brought under the controlrnof central governments.rnThis process of increased state contiol over violence was seenrneven in the United States, where traditions of individualismrn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn