exhortedhertothesacrificewereundoubtedlyinfluencedbya
purelyprofessionaldisliketoherenjoymentofproperty。The
ancientruleofthecivillaw，whichmadehertenantforlife，
couldnotbegotridof，butitwascombatedbythemodern
institutionwhichmadeitherdutytodevoteherselftoa
frightfuldeath。
IftheStridhanoftheHindoosisaformofmarriedwomen’s
separateproperty，whichhasbeendislikedandpervertedbythe
professionalclasseswhohadthepowertomodifyit，the
institutionwhichwasfirstthedosoftheRomans，andisnowthe
dotofContinentalEurope，hasreceivedasingularamountof
artificialencouragement。Ihaveendeavouredtodescribetoyou
howitoriginated，butIhaveyettostatethatitenteredinto
oneofthemostfamoussocialexperimentsoftheRomanEmpire。A
well-knownstatuteoftheemperorAugustus，celebratedbyHorace
inanofficialodeastheprince’sgreatestlegislative
achievement，hadforitsobjecttheencouragementandregulation
ofmarriageandtheimpositionofpenaltiesoncelibacy。Among
thechiefprovisionsofthis’LexJuliaetPapiaPoppoea’——to
giveitsfulltitle——wasaclausecompellingopulentparentsto
createportions，ordotes，fortheirmarriageabledaughters。This
provisionofastatute，whichverydeeplyaffectedtheRomanlaw
inmanyways，musthavemetwithgeneralapproval，foratalater
datewefindthesameprincipleappliedtothedonatiopropter
nuptias，orsettlementonthemarriedcouplefromthehusband’s
side。InthematuredRomanlaw，therefore，singularasitmay
seemtous，parentswereunderastatutoryobligationtomake
settlementsontheirchildren。
Ithasbeenratherthefashiontospeakoftheseexperiments
oftheRomanEmperorsonpublicmoralityasiftheytotally
miscarried——Isuppose，fromsomeideathatthefailureaddedto
thecreditofthemoralregenerationeffectedbyChristianity。
But，asamatteroffact，theChristianChurchconferredfew
civilbenefitsofgreatermomenttoseveralgenerationsof
mankindthaninkeepingalivethetraditionsoftheRoman
legislationrespectingsettledproperty，andinstrenuously
exertingitselftoextendandapplytheprinciplesofthese
disciplinarylaws。Therecanbenoseriousquestionthat，inits
ultimateresult，thedisruptionoftheRomanEmpirewasvery
unfavourabletothepersonalandproprietarylibertyofwomen。I
purposelysay，’initsultimateresult，’inordertoavoida
learnedcontroversyastotheirpositionunderpurelyTeutonic
customs。Itisverypossiblethatthelaststagesoftheprocess，
whichitisdifficulttocallanythingbutfeudalisation，were
moreunfavourabletowomenthantheearlierchanges，whichwere
exclusivelyduetotheinfusionofGermanicusage；but，atany
rate，theplaceofwomenunderthenewsystemwhenfully
organisedwasworsethanitwasunderRomanlaw，andwouldhave
beenverygreatlyworsebutfortheeffortsoftheChurch。One
standingmonumentoftheseeffortswehaveconstantlybeforeus
inthepromiseofthehusbandintheMarriageservice，’Withall
myworldlygoods，Itheeendow；’aformulawhichsometimes
puzzlestheEnglishlawyer，fromitswantofcorrespondencewith
anythingwhichhefindsamongtheoldestrulesofEnglishlaw。
Thewordshave，indeed，beenoccasionallyusedinEnglishlegal
treatises，asthetextofadisquisitiononthedistinction
betweenRomandos，towhichtheyaresupposedtorefer，andthe
doarium，whichisthe’dower’oflandsknowntoEnglishlaw。The
factis，however，thatthetraditionwhichtheChurchwas
carryingonwasthegeneraltraditionoftheRomandos，the
practicalobjectbeingtosecureforthewifeaprovisionof
whichthehusbandcouldnotwantonlydepriveher，andwhichwould
remaintoherafterhisdeath。Thebodiesofcustomarylawwhich
werebuiltupoverEuropewere，inallmattersoffirst
principle，underecclesiasticalinfluences；buttheparticular
applicationsofaprincipleonceacceptedwereextremelyvarious。
ThedoweroflandsinEnglishlaw，ofwhichhardlyashadow
remains，butunderwhichawifesurvivingherhusbandtooka
thirdoftherentsandprofitsofhisestatesforlife，belonged
toaclassofinstitutionswidelyspreadoverWesternEurope，
verysimilaringeneralcharacter，oftendesignatedasdoarium，
butdifferingconsiderablyindetail。Theyunquestionablyhad
theiroriginintheendeavoursoftheChurchtorevivetheRoman
institutionofthecompulsorydos，which，inthissense，produced
thedoarium，eventhoughthelattermayhavehadapartially
Germanicorigin，andeventhoughitoccasionallyassumeasit
unquestionablydoesashapeverydifferentfromtheoriginal
institution。Imyselfbelievethatanothereffectofthis
persistentpreachingandencouragementistobefoundinthe
strongfeelingwhichisdiffusedthroughmuchofEurope，and
speciallythroughtheLatinisedsocieties，infavourofdotation，
orportioningofdaughters，afeelingwhichseldomfailsto
astonishapersonacquaintedwithsuchacountryasFrancebyits
remarkableintensity。Itisaneconomicalpowerofconsiderable
importance，foritistheprincipalsourceofthosehabitsof
savingandhoardingwhichcharacterisetheFrenchpeople，andI
regarditasdescended，byalongchainofsuccession，fromthe
obligatoryprovisionsofthemarriagelawoftheEmperor
Augustus。
Theimportanceandinterestofoursubject，whentreatedin
allitsbearingsandthroughoutitswholehistory，arequite
enoughtoexcuseme，Itrust，forhavingdetainedyouwithan
accountofitsobscurebeginnings。Ithasbeensaidthatthe
degreeinwhichthepersonalimmunityandproprietarycapacityof
womenarerecognisedinaparticularstateorcommunityisatest
ofitsdegreeofadvanceincivilisation；and，thoughthe
assertionissometimesmadewithoutthequalificationswhichare
necessarytogiveitvalue，itisveryfarindeedfrombeinga
meregallantcommonplace。For，inasmuchasnoclassofsimilar
importanceandextentwas，intheinfancyofsociety，placedina
positionofsuchabsolutedependenceastheothersex，thedegree
inwhichthisdependencehasstepbystepbeenvoluntarily
modifiedandrelaxed，servesundoubtedlyasaroughmeasureof
tribal，social，nationalcapacityforself-control——ofthat
samecontrolwhichproduceswealthbysubduingthenatural
appetiteoflivingforthepresent，andwhichfructifiesinart
andlearningthroughsubordinatingamaterialandimmediatetoa
remote，intangible，andspiritualenjoyment。Theassertion，then，
thatthereisarelationbetweencivilisationandtheproprietary
capacitiesofwomenisonlyaformofthetruththateveryoneof
thoseconquests，thesumofwhichwecallcivilisation，isthe
resultofcurbingsomeoneofthestrongest，becausetheprimary，
impulsesofhumannature。Ifwewereaskedwhythetwosocieties
withwhichwehavebeenconcerned——theHindoosontheonehand，
andtheRomansandalltheracestowhichtheyhavebequeathed
theirinstitutionsontheother——havehadsowidelydifferenta
history，noreplycanbeveryconfidentlygiven，sodifficultis
it，amongthevastvarietyofinfluencesactingongreat
assemblagesofmen，tosingleoutanyoneoranydefinitenumber
ofthem，andtobesurethatthesehaveoperatedmorepowerfully
thantherest。Yet，ifitwereabsolutelynecessarytogivean
answer，itwouldconsistinpointingtothedifferenceintheir
socialhistorywhichhasbeenthesubjectofthislecture，andin
observingthatonesteadilycarriedforward，whiletheother
recoiledfrom，theseriesofchangeswhichputanendtothe
seclusionanddegradationofanentiresex。
Sovereignty
ThehistoricaltheoriescommonlyreceivedamongEnglish
lawyershavedonesomuchharmnotonlytothestudyoflawbut
tothestudyofhistory，thatanaccountoftheoriginandgrowth
ofourlegalsystem，foundedontheexaminationofnewmaterials
andthere-examinationofoldones，isperhapsthemosturgently
neededofalladditionstoEnglishknowledge。Butnexttoanew
historyoflaw，whatwemostrequireisanewphilosophyoflaw。
Ifourcountryevergivesbirthtosuchaphilosophy，weshall
probablyoweittotwoadvantages。Thefirstofthemisour
possessionofalegalsystemwhichformanypurposesmaybe
consideredindigenous。Ournationalpride，whichhassometimes
retardedorlimitedouradvanceinjuridicalenquiry，haskept
ourlawsingularlypurefrommixturewiththestreamoflegal
rulesflowingfromthegreatfountainoftheRomanCorpusJuris，
andthus，whenweplaceitinjuxtapositionwithanyother
Europeanlegalsystem，theresultsofthecomparisonarefarmore
fruitfulofinstructionthanthoseobtainedbycontrastingthe
variousContinentalbodiesoflawwithoneanother。Thesecond
advantageIbelievetoconsistinthegrowingfamiliarityof
Englishmenwiththeinvestigationsoftheso-calledAnalytical
Jurists，ofwhomthemostconsiderableareJeremyBenthamand
JohnAustin。Ofthisadvantagewehaveamonopoly。Benthamseems
tobeexclusivelyknowninFranceandGermanyastheauthorofan
unpopularsystemofmorals。Austinisapparentlynotknownat
all。YettoBentham，andeveninahigherdegreetoAustin，the
worldisindebtedfortheonlyexistingattempttoconstructa
systemofjurisprudencebystrictscientificprocessandtofound
it，noton*prioriassumption，butontheobservation，
comparison，andanalysisofthevariouslegalconceptions。There
isnotthesmallestnecessityforacceptingalltheconclusions
ofthesegreatwriterswithimplicitdeference，butthereisthe
strongestnecessityforknowingwhatthoseconclusionsare。They
areindispensable，iffornootherobject，forthepurposeof
clearingthehead。
AnimportantdistinctionbetweenBenthamandAustinisnotas
oftenrecognisedasitoughttobe。Benthaminthemainisa
writeronlegislation。Austininthemainisawriteron
jurisprudence，Benthamischieflyconcernedwithlawasitmight
beandoughttobe。Austinischieflyconcernedwithlawasit
is。Eachtrespassesoccasionallyonthedomainoftheother。
UnlessBenthamhadwrittenthetreatisecalledthe’Fragmenton
Government，’Austin’s’ProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined，’
whichsetsforththebasisofhissystem，wouldneverprobably
havebeencomposed。Ontheotherhand，Austin，inhissingular
discussionofthetheoryofutilityasanindextotheLawof
God，hasenteredonaninvestigationoftheclassfollowedby
Bentham。StillthedescriptionwhichIhavegivenoftheir
objectsissufficientlycorrectasageneraldescription，and
thoseobjectsarewidelydifferent。Benthamaimsatthe
improvementofthelawtobeeffectedbytheapplicationofthe
principlesnowindissolublyassociatedwithhisname。Almostall
ofhismoreimportantsuggestionshavebeenadoptedbythe
EnglishLegislature，buttheprocessofengraftingonthelaw
whattoeachsuccessivegenerationseemtobeimprovementsisin
itselfofindefiniteduration，andmaygoon，andpossiblywill
goon，aslongasthehumanracelasts。Austin’sundertakingis
moremodest。Itwouldbecompleted，ifaCodewereproduced
perfectlylogicalinorderofarrangementandperfectlylucidin
statementofruleJurisprudence，thescienceofpositivelaw，is
sometimesspokenofnowadaysasifitwouldbringthesubstance
ofthelawintoastateofindefiniteperfection。Itwould
doubtless，ifitwerecarriedfar，leadindirectlytogreatlegal
reformsbydispellingobscuritiesanddissipatingdelusions，but
theinvestigationoftheprinciplesonwhichthedirect
improvementofsubstantivelegalrulesshouldbeconducted
belongsneverthelessnottothetheoristonjurisprudencebutto
thetheoristonlegislation。