按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
that he seems to me open to the same charge as some of the
greatest writers on Political Economy who have omitted to set
forth at the outset with adequate distinctness the limited
objects of their science； and who have thus attracted to it a
mass of prejudice of which it may never possibly get rid。 The
present Lecture is an attempt to show what a certain number of
these assumptions or postulates are； in that which follows it； I
endeavour to show how these assumptions are affected by some
conclusions which we have arrived at in former Lectures during
our investigation of the early history of society。 （Supra；
Lectures I to XI） I think it best for my purpose to begin with
calling attention to the definition of Sovereignty。 Beyond all
doubt this is the logical order of the discussion undertaken by
Austin； and I find it difficult to understand； except on one
hypothesis； why； deserting the arrangement of Hobbes； he began
the discussion of this part of his subject by the analysis of
Law； Right and Duty； and ended it with an account of Sovereignty
which it seems to me should have come first。 I imagine； however；
that Blackstone influenced him； as he did Bentham； so to speak；
by repulsion。 Blackstone； following Roman Institutional writers；
begins with a definition of law and proceeds to give a theory of
the connection of the various legal conceptions。 The desire to
expose the fallacies of this portion of the Commentaries
furnished Bentham with his principal motive for writing the
Fragment on Government； and Austin with his chief inducement to
determine the Province of Jurisprudence； and the latter seems to
me to have thought that the propositions he disputed would be
most effectually disposed of； if they were contradicted in the
order given them by their author。 However that may be； the branch
of my subject on which I shall first have to enter may be
described as an enquiry into the probable mode in which Austin's
analysis would have been affected； if he had begun in his first
Lecture with the examination of the nature of Sovereignty。 This
examination he placed in the Sixth； which； so far as the
'Province of Jurisprudence' is concerned； is the last of his
Lectures。
I believe I may assume that most of my hearers are familiar
with the general character of the investigation prosecuted by
Austin in the Treatise to which I have referred； but； as his
definitions are not easily carried in the memory in their
complete shape； I will give his descriptions of an Independent
Political Society and of Sovereignty； the two conceptions being
interdependent and inseparable from one another。
'If （he says） a determinate human superior； not in the habit
of obedience to a like superior； receive habitual obedience from
the bulk of a given society； that determinate superior is
Sovereign in that society； and the society； including the
superior； is a society political and independent。'
He then proceeds： 'To that determinate superior the other
members of the society are subject； or on that determinate
superior the other members of the society are dependent。 The
position of its other members towards that determinate superior
is a state of subjection or a state of dependence。 The mutual
relation which subsists between that superior and them； may be
styled the relation of Sovereign and Subject； or the relation of
Sovereignty and Subjection。'
I may perhaps save the necessity for part of the
amplification and explanation of these definitions contained in
the Chapter in which they occur； if I state Austin's doctrine of
Sovereignty in another way more popularly； though without； I
think； any substantial inaccuracy。 It is as follows： There is； in
every independent political community that is； in every
political community not in the habit of obedience to a superior
above itself some single person or some combination of persons
which has the power of compelling the other members of the
community to do exactly as it pleases。 This single person or
group this individual or this collegiate Sovereign （to employ
Austin's phrase） may be found in every independent political
community as certainly as the centre of gravity in a mass of
matter。 If the community be violently or voluntarily divided into
a number of separate fragments； then； as soon as each fragment
has settled down （perhaps after an interval of anarchy） into a
state of equilibrium； the Sovereign will exist and with proper
care will be discoverable in each of the now independent
portions。 The Sovereignty over the North American Colonies of
Great Britain had its seat in one place before they became the
United States； in another place afterwards； but in both cases
there was a discoverable Sovereign somewhere。 This Sovereign；
this person or combination of persons； universally occurring in
all independent political communities； has in all such
communities one characteristic； common to all the shapes
Sovereignty may take； the possession of irresistible force； not
necessarily exerted but capable of being exerted。 According to
the terminology preferred by Austin； the Sovereign； if a single
person； is or should be called a Monarch； if a small group； the
name is an Oligarchy； if a group of considerable dimensions； an
Aristocracy。 if very large and numerous； a Democracy。 Limited
Monarchy； a phrase perhaps more fashionable in Austin's day than
it is now； is abhorred by Austin； and the Government of Great
Britain he classes with Aristocracies。 That which all the forms
of Sovereignty have in common is the power （the power but not
necessarily the will） to put compulsion without limit on subjects
or fellow…subjects。 It is sometimes extremely difficult to
discover the Sovereign in a given State； and； when he or it is
discovered； he may fall under no recognised designation； but；
where there is an independent political society not in a
condition of anarchy； the Sovereign is certainly there。 The
question of determining his character is； you will understand；
always a question of fact。 It is never a question of law or
morals。 He who； when a particular person or group is asserted to
constitute the Sovereign in a given community； denies the
proposition on the ground that such Sovereignty is an usurpation
or a violation of constitutional principle； has completely missed
Austin's point of view。
The definitions which I read from the Sixth Lecture furnish
Austin's tests for discovering the seat of Sovereignty in
independent states。 I will again refer to a few of the most
important of them； though very briefly。
First； the Sovereign is a determinate human superior。 He is
not necessarily a single person； in the modern Western world he
is very rarely so； but he must have so much of t