Fromthelawyer’spointofview，again，theimportanceisobvious。Healwayswishestoknowpreciselyatwhatpointthelawcanbebroughttobear。whetherarulewillbeenforcedbythecourts，orgenerallyUnderwhatcircumstancesacustomwillbeacceptedasalaw。Theanswernecessarilyleadstomuchlegalsubtlety。Thecustommaybetreatedasconstructivelyalaw。Thesovereignhasnotactuallymadenor’sanctioned’it；butvirtuehassomehowgoneoutofhimbyimplication，andhisrecognitionisequivalenttoimpositionoftherule。Thoughthe’sovereign’
hasnotreally’made’thelaw，hemaybeconsideredashavingmadeitbyametaphysicalfiction。InthisdirectionAustinbecomesthetwelfthcenturyschoolman，andhastosplithairstoforcehisdefinitionuponthefacts。Theinquiry，thoughnecessaryfromthelawyer’spointofview，becomesirrelevantfromthesociologist’s。Thesocialactionisthesame，whethertheruleobeyedbeacustomoralawstrictlysocalled。
Confusionthereforefollowswhenthequestionoflegalvalidityissubstitutedforthequestionofrealefficacy。Primitivesocietiesobeyimplicitlyavarietyofelaborate’laws’or’customs，’thoughtheyhavenoconceptionoflegislation。Theobediencetotheruleisinstinctive，andtheruleregardedasabsolutelyunalterable。Aresuchrules’laws’——thoughnotmadebyasovereign——ormere’customs，’thoughobeyedasstrictlyasthemosteffective’laws’？Austinanswersconsistentlythattheyarenotlawsatall。Therearepeople，hesays，in’astateofnature，’4*suchasthesavagesinNewHollandorNorthAmerica。
Theirlife，inHobbes’sfamousphrase，is’solitary，poor，nasty，brutish，andshort。’Theirlawscorrespondtomere’positivemoralityorthelawsetbypublicopinion，’whichisnecessarilysouncertainthatitcannotserveasacompleteguideofconduct，norcanitbesufficientlyminuteordetailed。5*Savages，itseems，formherdsnotsocieties，andmaybesimplyleftoutofconsiderationbythephilosophicaljurist。Austin，ofcourse。
couldnotbeexpectedtoanticipatemorerecentinvestigationsintoarchaicinstitutions；buthewasunluckyinthussummarilycondemningthembyanticipation。Inanycasethepositionindicatesanimportantgapinhissystem。Whatwasthelegalbondwhichconvertedtheherdsintopoliticalsocieties？Theproblemoftheformationofsocietyhadbeensolvednotbyhistoricalinquirybutbythe’socialcontracttheory。’AustinfollowsBenthamandHume。Theyhadshownconclusivelynotonlythatthecontractwasafigmenthistorically，butthatitcouldnotsupplywhatwaswanted。Itprofessedtoaddthesanctityofapromisetothesocialbond，whereasthesanctityofapromiseitselfrequiresexplanation。Thetheorysimplyamounted，asBenthamhadurged，toaroundaboutwayofintroducingutility。Anysortofcontract，asAustinurges，6*presupposesaformedpoliticalsociety。Clearlyitcannototherwisebeacontractinhissense——anobligationenforcedbyasanction——whenitisitselftobethefoundationofsovereigntyorsanctions。AustinthereforerejectscontemptuouslythedoctrineofnaturallawacceptedbyhisGermanteachers。Thetheorythatthereissomehoworotherabodyoflaw，deduciblebythepurereason，andyetcapableofoverridingordeterminingthe’lawproper，’ishisgreatexampleofontological’jargon’and’fustian。’Austin’sdiscipleshold7*thathismainservicetothephilosophyoflawwaspreciselyhisexposureofthefallacy。The’Natur-Recht’is’jargon。’Itismostdesirabletodiscussideallawasmeaningthelawwhichitwouldbeusefultoadopt；buttospeakasifithadalreadysometranscendentalrealityistoconfuse’ought’
with’is’or，asAustinwouldsay，thequestionofutilitywiththequestionofactualexistence。The’naturallaw’correspondstothelegalfictionsdenouncedbyBentham，underwhich，whenreallymakinglaw，judgespretendedtobeonlyapplyinganexistinglaw；andtothetheoriesattackedintheAnarchicalFallacies，accordingtowhichthisideallawcouldoverridetheactuallaw。Austin’spolemicwasnodoubtdirectedagainstatheoryfertileinconfusionandfallacies。
Stillthesocialcontract，thoughexploded，leavesaproblemforsolution。Somehoworotherthesocialorganismhasbeenputtogether，or，inAustin’sphrase，thesovereignhascomeintoexistence。Toexplainthisisthesociologicalproblem。Austinrecognisesadifficulty。Generallyspeaking，hesays，’theconstitutionofthesupremesocietyhasgrown。’8*Itshouldthen，wemightexpect，bestudiedlikeothergrowths，asthephysiologiststudiesthegrowthofplantsandanimalsandtriestoformulatetheprocesses。Austin，however，protestsbyanticipation。Hedoesnotusethe’fustianbutcurrentphrase，’
Growth，tocoveranythingmysterious。Heonlymeansthatgovernmentshaveinfactbeenputtogetherbyunsystematicprocesses’——’byalongseriesof’authors’and’successivesovereigns。’Theydidnot，thatis，springready-madefromthehandofasupernaturallegislator，buttheyweremadebyaseriesofpatchingsandcobblingscarriedoutbyignorantandshort-sightedrulers。The’growing，’then，wasreally’making，’
howeverblunderingandimperfect。Thuswehaveno’mystical’
socialbond。Societyhasbeenconstructedallalongbythesamemethod。Theultimatecausehasalwaysbeen，theperceptionoftheutilityofpoliticalgovernment，orthepreferencebythebulkofthecommunityofanygovernmenttoanarchy。’9*Thetheorythusappearstobethatmeninfactmadesuchanagreementasthesocialcontractsupposes，thoughtheagreementhadnottheforceofacontract。Menhavealwaysseen，astheyseenow，thatgovernmentisuseful；andthus’perceptionofutility’notutilitysimplyisthesoleforcewhichholdssocietytogetherandsupportsthesovereignandthesanctions。
Apracticallawyerhaslittleconcernwithsavagesandtheoriginofcivilsociety。Austin’sprinciples，however，applytothemodernsocietyalso。Law，asheseemstothink，excludesorsupersedescustom，sothatthewholefabricofthestateisentirelydependentuponthe’sovereign，’andthesocialunionuponthe’perceptionofutility。’Asarule，onemightobserve，thequestionhardlyarises。Menacceptthesocialconstitutionintowhichtheyareborn，becausetheycan’thelpit。Theyneveraskwhetheritisusefulbecausetheyhavenoalternativeofjoiningorseparating。ImayaskwhetherIshallbelongtothisorthatclub；butnoonecanchoosewhetherheshallorshallnotbeamemberofsociety。ThisleadstothepointalreadynoticedunderBentham。Customisnotreallythecreatureoflaw，butlawtheproductofcustom。Thegrowthofasocietydoesnotimplythedisappearanceofinstinct，butimpliesonthecontrarythatcertainfundamentalinstinctsandthecorrespondingmodesofactionhavebecomesothoroughlysettledandorganisedthatthesocietyiscapableofcombiningtomodifyparticularregulations。
WhentheEnglishpeoplepassedtheReformBillandtheAmericansacceptedtheconstitutionoftheUnitedStatestheyalteredveryimportantlaws，butitwaspreciselybecausetheyhadbeensothoroughlyimbuedwithcertainhabitsofcombinedaction，involvingtheacceptanceofcomplexlegislativeprocesses，thattheywereabletomakechangesinthelessessentialpartsoftheconstitution。The’sanction’nodoubtdeterminestheconductoftheindividual。Butwhenweaskuponwhatthendoesthesovereignpowerdepend，wemustgobehindthelaw，andaskwhatarethecomplexinstincts，beliefs，andpassionswhichinfactbindmentogetherandconstitutethesocietyasamoralorganism。
Theweaksideofthe’Austiniananalysis’isthistransferenceofalegalconceptiontoasociologicalproblem。
Distinctionsvalidandimportantintheirownspherebecomeirrelevantandleadtoidlesubtletiesbeyondthatsphere。What，infact，isthesovereign？Hestandsforanundeniablefact。Lawpresupposesastateandpoliticalunity。Politicalorderimpliessomesupremeanddefiniteauthoritywhichcanbeinvokedinallcontroversiesastowhatisorisnotthelaw。Thesimplestcasewouldbeanirresponsibledespotwhocouldcommandwhateverhepleased，andwhosecommandswouldbeimplicitlyobeyed。Ifhedoesnotexisthemustbeinvented，asVoltairesaidoftheDeity。Heisa’fictitiousentity，’ortheincarnationoflegalauthority。ThiscorrespondstothetruthimpliedintheUtilitarianpolemicagainstthesupposedbalanceofpowersandthemixtureofthethreeabstractforms，monarchy，aristocracy，anddemocracy。Theexistenceofthestateimpliesunityofauthorityandtheagreementthatthevalidityoflawsshalldependupontheirelaborationbydefiniteconstitutionalprocesses。Butthenwehavetoask，Whopreciselyisthesovereign？Theanswerwouldbesimpleinthecaseoftheindividualdespot。Whenthesovereignisnotasinglemanbutanorganisedbodyofmen，suchphrasesas’will’and’command’
becomemetaphorical。Thewillisnotonewill，buttheproductofmultitudinouswillsactingincomplexthoughdefinableways。Thesovereignisnotanentitydistinctfromthesubjects，butiscomposedofthesubjectsthemselves，orsomefractionofthem，accordingtoadefinitesetofregulations。Canthestatebetreatedastheembodimentofanexternalforce？Austinisgreatlypuzzledtosaywho，inagivencase，isthesovereign？Isparliament，ortheHouseofCommons，ortheelectoralbodytheultimatesovereignofEngland？WhoisthetruesovereigninafederalgovernmentsuchastheUnitedStates，wheresovereignpowersaredistributedincomplexways？Thelegalquestion，Whataretherecognisedformsbywhichvalidlawsarenominallyconstructed？isagainconfoundedwiththequestionoffact，Whataretherealforceswhich，infact，produceobedience？TheBritishConstitutionhasbeensteadilyalteringfromremotetimesasacertainunderstandinghasbeendeveloped。Thecentreofpowerhasimperceptiblyshiftedwithoutdefinitelegislation；andthelegaltheoryhasremainedunaltered，orhasonlyconformedtocustomsalreadyestablished。Thequestion，therefore，whatformsmustbeobservedinconformitytoprecedentorexplicitlegislation，isentirelydifferentfromthequestion，Whatarethereallydominantforces？Thecrowncanundoubtedlyvetoanactofparliamentinthelegalsenseof’can’；whetherit’can’dosointhepracticalsenseisaquestiononlytobesolvedbysayingwhataretherealforceswhichliebeneaththeconstitutionalmachinery。
IhavealreadynoticedthetendencyoftheUtilitarianstoconfusethelegaldoctrineofthesovereign’somnipotencewiththedoctrineofhisomnipotenceinfact。MacaulayhadsufficientlypointedouttoMillthatthesovereignwaslimited：
limitedbyhisowncharacterandbytheimpossibilityofenforcinglawsnotcongenialtothepublicsentiment。Austinillustratesafurtherresult。Customsarelegallyinvalidtillrecognisedandsanctionedbythesovereign。Thatisimportantforthelawyer。Butinterpretedasalawof’socialdynamics，’itleadstotheinversionbywhichcustomissupposedtobecreatedbythelaw，andthesovereignmadetheultimatesourceofpower，insteadofbeinghimselftheproductofalongandintricateprocessofdevelopmentofcustom。Here，therefore，isthepointatwhichtheUtilitarianviewbecomesantithetictothehistorical。Itseekstoexplainthefirststateofsocietybythelast，insteadofexplainingthelastbythefirst。Wecansee，too，themainreasonforthismodeofconceivingthecase。ToAustinthereferencetotheunderlyingforcesbywhichpoliticalsocietyisbuiltupseemedtobe’mysticism。’Afullydeveloped’law’isintelligible：thecustomswhichgrowupinthetwilightbeforethefulllightofdayhasappearedaretooincoherentandshadowyforscientifictreatment。Themodeofanalysingallphenomenaintoindependentanduniformatomsleadstothisresult。Causationitselfhadbeenreducedtomeresequencetogetridofa’mysticbond，’andthesamemethodisappliedtosocialphenomena。10*WehavethedifficultywhichoccurssooftenintheUtilitariantheories。Theydesireontheonehandtobescientific，andontheotherhandtobethoroughlyempirical。Theresultistodividethetwospheres：toenlargeasmuchaspossiblethevariabilityofhumansocietyinordertobe’empirical’；andtoregardtheconstituentatomsasunchangeable。
Hencetheyhavealwaysadifficultyofconceivingofgrowthor’evolution，’inwhichvariationissupposedtobecompatiblewiththeexistenceoflaw，ortocombinethetwoaspectsofchangeanduniformity。Thatalwaysappearstothemtobe’mystical。’Thoughtheydeny’freewill，’theygivethewidestpossiblerangetothesphereofvoluntaryaction。’Making’isradicallydistinguishedfrom’growing，’insteadofbeingsimplygrowthdirectedbyconsciousforesight。Thereisnothingreallymore’mystical，’