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！
Hobbes and in the Chapter De Cive in his Treatise first published
in Latin； called the Elementa Philosophiae； the analysis of
Government and Society and the determination of Sovereignty are
so nearly completed that little could be added to them by Bentham
and Austin。 The originality of these later writers； and more
particularly of Austin； resides in their much fuller examination
of the conceptions dependent on the notion of Sovereignty
positive law； positive duty； sanction and right in setting
forth the relations of these conceptions to others superficially
resembling them； in combating objections to the theory by which
the entire group of notions are connected together； and in
applying this theory to certain complex states of fact which had
arisen since Hobbes wrote。 There is； however； one great
difference between Hobbes and his latest successor。 The process
of Hobbes was scientific； but his object was less scientific than
political。 When； with a keenness of intuition and lucidity of
statement which have never been rivalled； he has made out a case
for the universal theoretical existence of Sovereignty； it
becomes clear that he has； to say the least； a strong preference
for monarchies over aristocracies and democracies； or （to use the
phraseology of the school which he founded） for individual over
corporate Sovereignty。 Those of his intellectual followers who
would have repudiated his politics have often asserted that he
has been misunderstood； and no doubt some superficial readers
have supposed that he was pointing at despotism when he was
really referring to the essentially unqualified power of the
Sovereign whatever the form of the Sovereignty。 But I do not
think it can in candour be denied that his strong dislike of the
Long Parliament and of the English Common law； as the great
instrument of resistance to the Stuart Kings； has occasionally
coloured the language which he uses in examining the nature of
Sovereignty； Law； and Anarchy； nor is it matter for surprise that
he should have been charged during his life with having devised
his system with the secret intention of making his peace with the
Protector； though the accusation itself is sufficiently refuted
by dates。 But Austin's object is strictly scientific。 If he has
fallen into errors； he has been led into them by his philosophy；
and his language scarcely ever betrays the colour of his
political opinions。
Another considerable difference is this。 Hobbes； it is well
known； speculated on the origin of Government and Sovereignty。 It
is the one fact which some persons seem to have learned about
him； and they appear to think his philosophy sufficiently
condemned by it。 But Austin barely enters on this enquiry；。 and
indeed he occasionally； though perhaps inadvertently； uses
language which almost seems to imply that Sovereignty and the
conceptions dependent on it have an * priori existence。 Now in
this matter I myself hold that the method of Hobbes was correct。
It is true that nothing can be more worthless in itself than
Hobbes's conjectural account of the origin of society and
government。 Mankind； he asserts； were originally in a state of
war。 They then made a compact under which every man abandoned his
powers of aggression； and the result was Sovereignty； and through
Sovereignty law； peace； and order。 The theory is open to every
sort of objection。 There is no evidence of any stage of the
supposed history； and the little we know of primitive man
contradicts it。 The universal disorder of the race in its infancy
may be true of the contests of tribe with tribe and of family
with family； but it is not true of the relations of individual
man with individual man； whom we； on the contrary； first discern
living together under a regimen which； if we are compelled to
employ modern phraseology； we must call one of ultra…legality。
And； in addition； the theory is open to precisely the same
objection as the counter…hypothesis of Locke； that it antedates
the modern juridical conception of Contract。 But still I think
that Hobbes did correctly in addressing himself to the problem；
though he did little to solve it。 The duty of enquiring； if not
how Sovereignty arose； at all events through what stages it has
passed； is in my judgment indispensable。 It is only thus that we
can assure ourselves in what degree the results of the Austinian
analysis tally with facts。
There is； in truth； nothing more important to the student of
jurisprudence than that he should carefully consider how far the
observed facts of human nature and society bear out the
assertions which are made or seem to be made about Sovereignty by
the Analytical Jurists。 To begin with； these assertions must be
disentangled from one another。 The first of them is that； in
every independent community of men； there resides the power of
acting with irresistible force on the several members of that
community。 This may be accepted as actual fact。 If all the
members of the community had equal physical strength and were
unarmed； the power would be a mere result from the superiority of
numbers； but； as a matter。 of fact； various causes； of which much
the most important have been the superior physical strength and
the superior armament of portions of the community have conferred
on numerical minorities the power of applying irresistible
pressure to the individuals who make up the community as a whole。
The next assertion is that； in every independent political
community； that is in every independent community neither in a
state of nature on the one hand nor in a state of anarchy on the
other； the power of using or directing the irresistible force
stored…up in the society resides in some person or combination of
persons who belong to the society themselves。 The truth of this
assertion is strongly suggested by a certain class of facts；
particularly by the political facts of the Western and Modern
world； but all the relevant facts； it must be recollected； have
not been fully observed。 The whole world； of which theorists on
human nature are extremely apt to forget considerably more than
half； and the entire history of the whole world； would have to be
examined before we could be quite sure of the facts； and； if this
were done； it may be that a great n umber of the facts would not
so strongly suggest the conclusion； or； as I myself think； the
assertion which we are considering would not so much be shown to
be false as to be only verbally true； and therefore without the
value which it possesses in societies of the type to which our
own belongs。 An assertion； however； which the great Analytical
Jurists cannot be charged with making； but which some of their
disciples go very near to hazarding； that the Sovereign person or
group actually wields the stored…up force of society by an
uncontrolled exercise of will； is certainly never in accordance
with fact。 A despot with a disturbed brain is the sole
conceivable example of such Sovereignty。 The vast mass of
influences； which we may call for shortness moral； perpetually
shapes； limits； or forbids the actual direction of the forces of
society by its Sovereign。 This is the point which； of all others；
it is practically most necessary that the student should bear in
mind； because it does most to show what the Austinian view of
Sovereignty really is that it is the result of Abstraction。 It
is arrived at by throwing aside all the characteristics and
attributes of Government and Society except one； and by
connecting all forms of political superiority together through
their common possession of force。 The elements neglected in the
process are always important； sometimes of extreme importance；
for they consist of all the influences controlling human action
except force directly applied or directly apprehended ； but the
operation of throwing them aside for purposes of classification
is； I need hardly say； perfectly legitimate philosophically； and
is only the application of a method in ordinary scientific use。
To put the same thing in another way； that which we reject in
the process of abstraction by which the conception of Sovereignty
is reached is the entire history of each community。 First of all；
it is the history； the whole historical antecedents； of each
society by which it has been determined where； in what person or
group； the power of using the social force is to reside。 The
theory of Sovereignty neglects the mode in which the result has
been arrived at； and thus is enabled to class together the
coercive authority of the great King of Persia； of the Athenian
Demos； of the later Roman Emperors； of the Russian Czar； and of
the Crow