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！
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 the attributes of
a single person as to be determinate。 If he is not a single
person； he must be a number of persons capable of acting in a
corporate or collegiate capacity。 This part of the definition is
absolutely necessary； since the Sovereign must effect his
exertions of power； must issue his orders； by a definite exercise
of his will。 The possession of physical power； which is one
characteristic of Sovereignty； has as matter of historical fact
repeatedly been for a time in the hands of a number of persons
not determinate； not so connected together as to be capable of
exercising volition； but such a state of things Austin would call
anarchy； though it might not have all the usually recognised
symptoms of a revolutionary interval。 At the same time； the
limitation of Sovereignty to determinate groups； when the
Sovereign is not an individual； is extremely important； since it
qualities the notion of Sovereignty by rendering it subject to
the various artifices by which an exercise of volition is
elicited from a corporate body。 Familiar to us as is the practice
of taking the opinion of a majority as the opinion of an entire
group； and natural as it seems； nothing can be more artificial。
Again； the bulk of the society must obey the superior who is
to be called Sovereign。 Not the whole of the society； for in that
case Sovereignty would be impossible； but the bulk； the large
majority； must obey。 After the accession of the House of Hanover
to the British throne； a certain number of Jacobites and a
considerable portion of the Scottish Highlanders habitually
disobeyed or disregarded the commands of the British Crown and
Parliament； but the bulk of the nation； including no doubt the
bulk of the Jacobites themselves； gave to these commands a
practical obedience。 On Austin's principles； therefore； there is
not the least ground for questioning the Sovereignty of George
the First and Second and of the Parliaments elected at their
summons。 The Jacobite view； that the Hanoverian Kings were
exclusively Sovereign in Hanover； would at once be throw aside by
Austin as not raising that question of fact which is alone
disputable under his system。
Next； the Sovereign must receive an habitual obedience from
the bulk of the community。 In European societies professing the
Roman Catholic faith； the great majority of the population
receives a variety of directions on points of personal conduct；
either mediately or immediately； from the See of Rome。 But；
compared with the number of times it submits itself to the laws
of the country it inhabits； its obedience to these extrinsic
commands is only occasional； and not habitual。 At the same time a
dim appreciation of the principles brought into light by Austin
may be detected in several famous ecclesiastical controversies；
which sometimes tend to become disputes whether the obedience to
the See of Rome which is actually paid is or is not so frequent
as to fall under the description of habitual。
A further characteristic of Sovereignty is immunity from the
control of every other human superior。 The limitation is
obviously necessary； for otherwise the Governor…General of India
in Council would be Sovereign； and indeed would exhibit a closer
correspondence with the more salient features of Sovereignty than
almost any other potentate on the face of the globe。
Those who have observed with what slowness definite
conceptions are developed in the field of history and politics
will be prepared to hear that this whole view of the nature of
Sovereignty is older than Austin's work。 But； so far as my own
knowledge extends； I do not think that any material portion of it
is older than Hobbes。 On the other hand； in the Leviathan of
Hobbes and in the Chapter De Cive in his Treatise first published
in Latin； called the Elementa Philosophiae； the