TheportionofAustin’sLectureswhichsetsforththebasis
ofhissystem，andwhichwaspublishedseveralyearsagoasthe
’ProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined，’haslongbeenoneofthe
higherclassbooksinthisUniversity；and，takentogetherwith
theotherlecturesmorerecentlygiventotheworldthough
unhappilyinafragmentaryshape，itmustalways，orforalong
timetocome，bethemainstayofthestudiesprosecutedinthis
Department。Makingtheutmostacknowledgmentofthevalueofthe
book，Ifinditimpossiblenottorecognisethemagnitudeofthe
difficultieswhichitoccasionstothebeginner。Thosewhichhave
theirorigininpeculiaritiesofstyleandwhichseemtobe
attributabletotheperpetualcommerceofthoughtinwhichthe
writerlivedwithhisprecursors，BenthamandHobbes，Ifindto
bepracticallylessgravethandifficultiesofanothersortwhich
arisefromtherepulsioncreatedinthemindbytheshapein
whichtheconceptionsoflaw，right，anddutyarepresentedtoit
byAustin’sanalysis。Ofcourse，sofarasthisdistasteis
causedbyunpalatabletruth，anytendernessshowntoitwouldbe
wasted；buteventhusitisamisfortune，and，ifitbeinany
degreeprovokedbyavoidablecauses，suchasmethodsofstatement
orarrangement，nopainsbestowedontheattempttoremoveitto
thisextentwouldbethrownaway。Averyfrequenteffectof
forcingonstudentsofactivemindandindustrioushabitsa
systemorsubjectwhichforsomereasonorotherisrepugnantto
themistomakethemregarditassomuchdogma，assomething
restingonthepersonalauthorityofthewriterwithwhosename
ithappenstobeassociated。Nownothingcouldbemore
unfortunateforthephilosophyoflawthanthatthesystemofthe
’ProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined’shouldcometoberegarded
simplyasAustin’ssystem——asstandingbytheside。of
Blackstone’sorHegel’soranyothersystem——asinterchangeable
withitorequivalenttoit。For，whencertainassumptionsor
postulateshavebeenmade，Iamfullyconvincedthatthegreat
majorityofAustin’spositionsfollowasofcourseandby
ordinarylogicalprocess。Theseassumptionsdonotappeartome
tobestatedanddescribedbyAustinwithsufficientfulness——
possiblybecause，thoughheisacomparativelymodernwriter，a
partoftheenquiriesnecessaryforsuchstatementhadinhisday
beenbarelycommenced——but，whateverthecause，theresultis
thatheseemstomeopentothesamechargeassomeofthe
greatestwritersonPoliticalEconomywhohaveomittedtoset
forthattheoutsetwithadequatedistinctnessthelimited
objectsoftheirscience，andwhohavethusattractedtoita
massofprejudiceofwhichitmayneverpossiblygetrid。The
presentLectureisanattempttoshowwhatacertainnumberof
theseassumptionsorpostulatesare；inthatwhichfollowsit，I
endeavourtoshowhowtheseassumptionsareaffectedbysome
conclusionswhichwehavearrivedatinformerLecturesduring
ourinvestigationoftheearlyhistoryofsociety。Supra，
LecturesItoXIIthinkitbestformypurposetobeginwith
callingattentiontothedefinitionofSovereignty。Beyondall
doubtthisisthelogicalorderofthediscussionundertakenby
Austin，andIfinditdifficulttounderstand，exceptonone
hypothesis，why，desertingthearrangementofHobbes，hebegan
thediscussionofthispartofhissubjectbytheanalysisof
Law，RightandDuty，andendeditwithanaccountofSovereignty
whichitseemstomeshouldhavecomefirst。Iimagine，however，
thatBlackstoneinfluencedhim，ashedidBentham，sotospeak，
byrepulsion。Blackstone，followingRomanInstitutionalwriters，
beginswithadefinitionoflawandproceedstogiveatheoryof
theconnectionofthevariouslegalconceptions。Thedesireto
exposethefallaciesofthisportionoftheCommentaries
furnishedBenthamwithhisprincipalmotiveforwritingthe
FragmentonGovernment，andAustinwithhischiefinducementto
determinetheProvinceofJurisprudence，andthelatterseemsto
metohavethoughtthatthepropositionshedisputedwouldbe
mosteffectuallydisposedof，iftheywerecontradictedinthe
ordergiventhembytheirauthor。Howeverthatmaybe，thebranch
ofmysubjectonwhichIshallfirsthavetoentermaybe
describedasanenquiryintotheprobablemodeinwhichAustin’s
analysiswouldhavebeenaffected，ifhehadbeguninhisfirst
LecturewiththeexaminationofthenatureofSovereignty。This
examinationheplacedintheSixth，which，sofarasthe
’ProvinceofJurisprudence’isconcerned，isthelastofhis
Lectures。
IbelieveImayassumethatmostofmyhearersarefamiliar
withthegeneralcharacteroftheinvestigationprosecutedby
AustinintheTreatisetowhichIhavereferred，but，ashis
definitionsarenoteasilycarriedinthememoryintheir
completeshape，IwillgivehisdescriptionsofanIndependent
PoliticalSocietyandofSovereignty，thetwoconceptionsbeing
interdependentandinseparablefromoneanother。
’Ifhesaysadeterminatehumansuperior，notinthehabit
ofobediencetoalikesuperior，receivehabitualobediencefrom
thebulkofagivensociety，thatdeterminatesuperioris
Sovereigninthatsociety，andthesociety，includingthe
superior，isasocietypoliticalandindependent。’
Hethenproceeds：’Tothatdeterminatesuperiortheother
membersofthesocietyaresubject；oronthatdeterminate
superiortheothermembersofthesocietyaredependent。The
positionofitsothermemberstowardsthatdeterminatesuperior
isastateofsubjectionorastateofdependence。Themutual
relationwhichsubsistsbetweenthatsuperiorandthem，maybe
styledtherelationofSovereignandSubject，ortherelationof
SovereigntyandSubjection。’
Imayperhapssavethenecessityforpartofthe
amplificationandexplanationofthesedefinitionscontainedin
theChapterinwhichtheyoccur，ifIstateAustin’sdoctrineof
Sovereigntyinanotherway——morepopularly，thoughwithout，I
think，anysubstantialinaccuracy。Itisasfollows：Thereis，in
everyindependentpoliticalcommunity——thatis，inevery
politicalcommunitynotinthehabitofobediencetoasuperior
aboveitself——somesinglepersonorsomecombinationofpersons
whichhasthepowerofcompellingtheothermembersofthe
communitytodoexactlyasitpleases。Thissinglepersonor
group——thisindividualorthiscollegiateSovereigntoemploy
Austin’sphrase——maybefoundineveryindependentpolitical
communityascertainlyasthecentreofgravityinamassof
matter。Ifthecommunitybeviolentlyorvoluntarilydividedinto
anumberofseparatefragments，then，assoonaseachfragment
hassettleddownperhapsafteranintervalofanarchyintoa
stateofequilibrium，theSovereignwillexistandwithproper
carewillbediscoverableineachofthenowindependent
portions。TheSovereigntyovertheNorthAmericanColoniesof
GreatBritainhaditsseatinoneplacebeforetheybecamethe
UnitedStates，inanotherplaceafterwards；butinbothcases
therewasadiscoverableSovereignsomewhere。ThisSovereign，
thispersonorcombinationofpersons，universallyoccurringin
allindependentpoliticalcommunities，hasinallsuch
communitiesonecharacteristic，commontoalltheshapes
Sovereigntymaytake，thepossessionofirresistibleforce，not
necessarilyexertedbutcapableofbeingexerted。Accordingto
theterminologypreferredbyAustin，theSovereign，ifasingle
person，isorshouldbecalledaMonarch；ifasmallgroup，the
nameisanOligarchy；ifagroupofconsiderabledimensions，an
Aristocracy。ifverylargeandnumerous，aDemocracy。Limited
Monarchy，aphraseperhapsmorefashionableinAustin’sdaythan
itisnow，isabhorredbyAustin，andtheGovernmentofGreat
BritainheclasseswithAristocracies。Thatwhichalltheforms
ofSovereigntyhaveincommonisthepowerthepowerbutnot
necessarilythewilltoputcompulsionwithoutlimitonsubjects
orfellow-subjects。Itissometimesextremelydifficultto
discovertheSovereigninagivenState，and，whenheoritis
discovered，hemayfallundernorecogniseddesignation，but，
wherethereisanindependentpoliticalsocietynotina
conditionofanarchy，theSovereigniscertainlythere。The
questionofdetermininghischaracteris，youwillunderstand，
alwaysaquestionoffact。Itisneveraquestionoflawor
morals。Hewho，whenaparticularpersonorgroupisassertedto
constitutetheSovereigninagivencommunity，deniesthe
propositiononthegroundthatsuchSovereigntyisanusurpation
oraviolationofconstitutionalprinciple，hascompletelymissed
Austin’spointofview。
ThedefinitionswhichIreadfromtheSixthLecturefurnish
Austin’stestsfordiscoveringtheseatofSovereigntyin
independentstates。Iwillagainrefertoafewofthemost
importantofthem，thoughverybriefly。
First，theSovereignisadeterminatehumansuperior。Heis
notnecessarilyasingleperson；inthemodernWesternworldhe
isveryrarelyso；buthemusthavesomuchoftheattributesof
asinglepersonastobedeterminate。Ifheisnotasingle
person，hemustbeanumberofpersonscapableofactingina
corporateorcollegiatecapacity。Thispartofthedefinitionis
absolutelynecessary，sincetheSovereignmusteffecthis
exertionsofpower，mustissuehisorders，byadefiniteexercise
ofhiswill。Thepossessionofphysicalpower，whichisone
characteristicofSovereignty，hasasmatterofhistoricalfact
repeatedlybeenforatimeinthehandsofanumberofpersons
notdeterminate，notsoconnectedtogetherastobecapableof
exercisingvolition，butsuchastateofthingsAustinwouldcall
anarchy，thoughitmightnothavealltheusuallyrecognised
symptomsofarevolutionaryinterval。Atthesametime，the
limitationofSovereigntytodeterminategroups，whenthe
Sovereignisnotanindividual，isextremelyimportant，sinceit
qualitiesthenotionofSovereigntybyrenderingitsubjectto
thevariousartificesbywhichanexerciseofvolitionis
elicitedfromacorporatebody。Familiartousasisthepractice
oftakingtheopinionofamajorityastheopinionofanentire
group，andnaturalasitseems，nothingcanbemoreartificial。
Again，thebulkofthesocietymustobeythesuperiorwhois
tobecalledSovereign。Notthewholeofthesociety，forinthat
caseSovereigntywouldbeimpossible，butthebulk，thelarge
majority，mustobey。AftertheaccessionoftheHouseofHanover
totheBritishthrone，acertainnumberofJacobitesanda
considerableportionoftheScottishHighlandershabitually
disobeyedordisregardedthecommandsoftheBritishCrownand
Parliament，butthebulkofthenation，includingnodoubtthe
bulkoftheJacobitesthemselves，gavetothesecommandsa
practicalobedience。OnAustin’sprinciples，therefore，thereis
nottheleastgroundforquestioningtheSovereigntyofGeorge
theFirstandSecondandoftheParliamentselectedattheir
summons。TheJacobiteview，thattheHanoverianKingswere
exclusivelySovereigninHanover，wouldatoncebethrowasideby
Austinasnotraisingthatquestionoffactwhichisalone
disputableunderhissystem。
Next，theSovereignmustreceiveanhabitualobediencefrom
thebulkofthecommunity。InEuropeansocietiesprofessingthe
RomanCatholicfaith，thegreatmajorityofthepopulation
receivesavarietyofdirectionsonpointsofpersonalconduct，
eithermediatelyorimmediately，fromtheSeeofRome。But，
comparedwiththenumberoftimesitsubmitsitselftothelaws
ofthecountryitinhabits，itsobediencetotheseextrinsic