commandsisonlyoccasional，andnothabitual。Atthesametimea
dimappreciationoftheprinciplesbroughtintolightbyAustin
maybedetectedinseveralfamousecclesiasticalcontroversies，
whichsometimestendtobecomedisputeswhethertheobedienceto
theSeeofRomewhichisactuallypaidisorisnotsofrequent
astofallunderthedescriptionofhabitual。
AfurthercharacteristicofSovereigntyisimmunityfromthe
controlofeveryotherhumansuperior。Thelimitationis
obviouslynecessary，forotherwisetheGovernor-GeneralofIndia
inCouncilwouldbeSovereign，andindeedwouldexhibitacloser
correspondencewiththemoresalientfeaturesofSovereigntythan
almostanyotherpotentateonthefaceoftheglobe。
Thosewhohaveobservedwithwhatslownessdefinite
conceptionsaredevelopedinthefieldofhistoryandpolitics
willbepreparedtohearthatthiswholeviewofthenatureof
SovereigntyisolderthanAustin’swork。But，sofarasmyown
knowledgeextends，Idonotthinkthatanymaterialportionofit
isolderthanHobbes。Ontheotherhand，intheLeviathanof
HobbesandintheChapterDeCiveinhisTreatisefirstpublished
inLatin，calledtheElementaPhilosophiae，theanalysisof
GovernmentandSocietyandthedeterminationofSovereigntyare
sonearlycompletedthatlittlecouldbeaddedtothembyBentham
andAustin。Theoriginalityoftheselaterwriters，andmore
particularlyofAustin，residesintheirmuchfullerexamination
oftheconceptionsdependentonthenotionofSovereignty——
positivelaw，positiveduty，sanctionandright——insetting
forththerelationsoftheseconceptionstootherssuperficially
resemblingthem，incombatingobjectionstothetheorybywhich
theentiregroupofnotionsareconnectedtogether，andin
applyingthistheorytocertaincomplexstatesoffactwhichhad
arisensinceHobbeswrote。Thereis，however，onegreat
differencebetweenHobbesandhislatestsuccessor。Theprocess
ofHobbeswasscientific，buthisobjectwaslessscientificthan
political。When，withakeennessofintuitionandlucidityof
statementwhichhaveneverbeenrivalled，hehasmadeoutacase
fortheuniversaltheoreticalexistenceofSovereignty，it
becomesclearthathehas，tosaytheleast，astrongpreference
formonarchiesoveraristocraciesanddemocracies，ortousethe
phraseologyoftheschoolwhichhefoundedforindividualover
corporateSovereignty。Thoseofhisintellectualfollowerswho
wouldhaverepudiatedhispoliticshaveoftenassertedthathe
hasbeenmisunderstood，andnodoubtsomesuperficialreaders
havesupposedthathewaspointingatdespotismwhenhewas
reallyreferringtotheessentiallyunqualifiedpowerofthe
SovereignwhatevertheformoftheSovereignty。ButIdonot
thinkitcanincandourbedeniedthathisstrongdislikeofthe
LongParliamentandoftheEnglishCommonlaw，asthegreat
instrumentofresistancetotheStuartKings，hasoccasionally
colouredthelanguagewhichheusesinexaminingthenatureof
Sovereignty，Law，andAnarchy；norisitmatterforsurprisethat
heshouldhavebeenchargedduringhislifewithhavingdevised
hissystemwiththesecretintentionofmakinghispeacewiththe
Protector，thoughtheaccusationitselfissufficientlyrefuted
bydates。ButAustin’sobjectisstrictlyscientific。Ifhehas
fallenintoerrors，hehasbeenledintothembyhisphilosophy，
andhislanguagescarcelyeverbetraysthecolourofhis
politicalopinions。
Anotherconsiderabledifferenceisthis。Hobbes，itiswell
known，speculatedontheoriginofGovernmentandSovereignty。It
istheonefactwhichsomepersonsseemtohavelearnedabout
him，andtheyappeartothinkhisphilosophysufficiently
condemnedbyit。ButAustinbarelyentersonthisenquiry，。and
indeedheoccasionally，thoughperhapsinadvertently，uses
languagewhichalmostseemstoimplythatSovereigntyandthe
conceptionsdependentonithavean*prioriexistence。Nowin
thismatterImyselfholdthatthemethodofHobbeswascorrect。
Itistruethatnothingcanbemoreworthlessinitselfthan
Hobbes’sconjecturalaccountoftheoriginofsocietyand
government。Mankind，heasserts，wereoriginallyinastateof
war。Theythenmadeacompactunderwhicheverymanabandonedhis
powersofaggression，andtheresultwasSovereignty，andthrough
Sovereigntylaw，peace，andorder。Thetheoryisopentoevery
sortofobjection。Thereisnoevidenceofanystageofthe
supposedhistory，andthelittleweknowofprimitiveman
contradictsit。Theuniversaldisorderoftheraceinitsinfancy
maybetrueofthecontestsoftribewithtribeandoffamily
withfamily；butitisnottrueoftherelationsofindividual
manwithindividualman，whomwe，onthecontrary，firstdiscern
livingtogetherunderaregimenwhich，ifwearecompelledto
employmodernphraseology，wemustcalloneofultra-legality。
And，inaddition，thetheoryisopentopreciselythesame
objectionasthecounter-hypothesisofLocke，thatitantedates
themodernjuridicalconceptionofContract。ButstillIthink
thatHobbesdidcorrectlyinaddressinghimselftotheproblem，
thoughhedidlittletosolveit。Thedutyofenquiring，ifnot
howSovereigntyarose，atalleventsthroughwhatstagesithas
passed，isinmyjudgmentindispensable。Itisonlythusthatwe
canassureourselvesinwhatdegreetheresultsoftheAustinian
analysistallywithfacts。
Thereis，intruth，nothingmoreimportanttothestudentof
jurisprudencethanthatheshouldcarefullyconsiderhowfarthe
observedfactsofhumannatureandsocietybearoutthe
assertionswhicharemadeorseemtobemadeaboutSovereigntyby
theAnalyticalJurists。Tobeginwith，theseassertionsmustbe
disentangledfromoneanother。Thefirstofthemisthat，in
everyindependentcommunityofmen，thereresidesthepowerof
actingwithirresistibleforceontheseveralmembersofthat
community。Thismaybeacceptedasactualfact。Ifallthe
membersofthecommunityhadequalphysicalstrengthandwere
unarmed，thepowerwouldbeamereresultfromthesuperiorityof
numbers；but，asamatter。offact，variouscauses，ofwhichmuch
themostimportanthavebeenthesuperiorphysicalstrengthand
thesuperiorarmamentofportionsofthecommunityhaveconferred
onnumericalminoritiesthepowerofapplyingirresistible
pressuretotheindividualswhomakeupthecommunityasawhole。
Thenextassertionisthat，ineveryindependentpolitical
community，thatisineveryindependentcommunityneitherina
stateofnatureontheonehandnorinastateofanarchyonthe
other，thepowerofusingordirectingtheirresistibleforce
stored-upinthesocietyresidesinsomepersonorcombinationof
personswhobelongtothesocietythemselves。Thetruthofthis
assertionisstronglysuggestedbyacertainclassoffacts，
particularlybythepoliticalfactsoftheWesternandModern
world；butalltherelevantfacts，itmustberecollected，have
notbeenfullyobserved。Thewholeworld，ofwhichtheoristson
humannatureareextremelyapttoforgetconsiderablymorethan
half，andtheentirehistoryofthewholeworld，wouldhavetobe
examinedbeforewecouldbequitesureofthefacts，and，ifthis
weredone，itmaybethatagreatnumberofthefactswouldnot
sostronglysuggesttheconclusion，or，asImyselfthink，the
assertionwhichweareconsideringwouldnotsomuchbeshownto
befalseastobeonlyverballytrue，andthereforewithoutthe
valuewhichitpossessesinsocietiesofthetypetowhichour
ownbelongs。Anassertion，however，whichthegreatAnalytical
Juristscannotbechargedwithmaking，butwhichsomeoftheir
disciplesgoveryneartohazarding，thattheSovereignpersonor
groupactuallywieldsthestored-upforceofsocietybyan
uncontrolledexerciseofwill，iscertainlyneverinaccordance
withfact。Adespotwithadisturbedbrainisthesole
conceivableexampleofsuchSovereignty。Thevastmassof
influences，whichwemaycallforshortnessmoral，perpetually
shapes，limits，orforbidstheactualdirectionoftheforcesof
societybyitsSovereign。Thisisthepointwhich，ofallothers，
itispracticallymostnecessarythatthestudentshouldbearin
mind，becauseitdoesmosttoshowwhattheAustinianviewof
Sovereigntyreallyis——thatitistheresultofAbstraction。It
isarrivedatbythrowingasideallthecharacteristicsand
attributesofGovernmentandSocietyexceptone，andby
connectingallformsofpoliticalsuperioritytogetherthrough
theircommonpossessionofforce。Theelementsneglectedinthe
processarealwaysimportant，sometimesofextremeimportance，
fortheyconsistofalltheinfluencescontrollinghumanaction
exceptforcedirectlyappliedordirectlyapprehended；butthe
operationofthrowingthemasideforpurposesofclassification
is，Ineedhardlysay，perfectlylegitimatephilosophically，and
isonlytheapplicationofamethodinordinaryscientificuse。
Toputthesamethinginanotherway，thatwhichwerejectin
theprocessofabstractionbywhichtheconceptionofSovereignty
isreachedistheentirehistoryofeachcommunity。Firstofall，
itisthehistory，thewholehistoricalantecedents，ofeach
societybywhichithasbeendeterminedwhere，inwhatpersonor
group，thepowerofusingthesocialforceistoreside。The
theoryofSovereigntyneglectsthemodeinwhichtheresulthas
beenarrivedat，andthusisenabledtoclasstogetherthe
coerciveauthorityofthegreatKingofPersia，oftheAthenian
Demos，ofthelaterRomanEmperors，oftheRussianCzar，andof
theCrownandParliamentofGreatBritain。Next，itisits
history，theentiremassofitshistoricalantecedents，whichin
eachcommunitydetermineshowtheSovereignshallexerciseor
forbearfromexercisinghisirresistiblecoercivepower。Allthat
constitutesthis——thewholeenormousaggregateofopinions，
sentiments，beliefs，superstitions，andprejudices，ofideasof
allkinds，hereditaryandacquired，someproducedbyinstitutions
andsomebytheconstitutionofhumannature——isrejectedby
theAnalyticalJurists。Andthusitisthat，sofarasthe
restrictionsconfinedintheirdefinitionofSovereigntyare
concerned，theQueenandParliamentofourowncountrymight
directallweaklychildrentobeputtodeathorestablisha
systemoflettresdecachet。
TheprocedureoftheAnalyticalJuristsiscloselyanalogous
tothatfollowedinmathematicsandpoliticaleconomy。Itis
strictlyphilosophical，butthepracticalvalueofallsciences
foundedonabstractionsdependsontherelativeimportanceofthe
elementsrejectedandtheelementsretainedintheprocessof
abstraction。Triedbythistest，mathematicalscienceisof
greatlymorevaluethanpoliticaleconomy，andbothofthemthan
jurisprudenceasconceivedbythewritersIamcriticising。
Similarly，themisconceptionstowhichtheAustiniananalysis
givesriseareverysimilartothosewhichmightbeconceivedas
embarrassingthestudentofmixedmathematics，andwhichdo
actuallyembarrassthestudentofpoliticaleconomy。Justasit
ispossibletoforgettheexistenceoffrictioninnatureandthe
realityofothermotivesinsocietyexceptthedesiretogrow
rich，sothepupilofAustinmaybetemptedtoforgetthatthere
ismoreinactualSovereigntythanforce，andmoreinlawswhich
arethecommandsofsovereignsthancanbegotoutofthemby
merelyconsideringthemasregulatedforce。Iamnotpreparedto
denythatAustinoccasionally，andHobbesfrequently，express
themselvesasiftheirsystemwerenotlimitedthroughoutbythe
limitationwhichisatitsbaseAllthegreatmastersof
Abstractionare，infact，nowandthenbetrayedintospeakingor
writingasifthematerialsthrownasideinthepurelymental