thequestionhowfarthecharacteristicsofthehumansuperiors
calledSovereignscanbesupposedtoattachtoanall-powerful
andnon-humanruler，andhowmanyoftheconceptionsdependenton
humanSovereigntymustbeconsideredascontainedinhis
commands。Imuchdoubtwhethersuchanenquirywouldhaveseemed
calledforinatreatiselikeAustin’s。Takenatitsbest，itis
adiscussionbelongingnottothephilosophyoflawbuttothe
philosophyoflegislation。Thejurist，properlysocalled，has
nothingtodowithanyidealstandardoflawormorals。LectureXIIISovereigntyandEmpire
Theword’law’hascomedowntousincloseassociationwith
twonotions，thenotionoforderandthenotionofforce。The
associationisofconsiderableantiquityandisdisclosedbya
considerablevarietyoflanguages，andtheproblemhasrepeatedly
suggesteditself，whichofthetwonotionsthuslinkedtogether
isentitledtoprecedenceovertheother，whichofthemisfirst
inpointofmentalconception？Theanswer，beforetheAnalytical
Juristswrote，wouldonthewholehavebeenthat’law’beforeall
thingsimpliedorder。’Law，initsmostgeneralandcomprehensive
sense，signifiesaruleofaction，andisapplied
indiscriminatelytoallkindsofaction，whetheranimateor
inanimate，rationalorirrational。Thuswesay，thelawsof
motion，ofgravitation，ofopticsormechanics，aswellasthe
lawsofnatureandofnations。’WiththesewordsBlackstone
beginsthatChapteron’theNatureofLawsinGeneral，’whichmay
almostbesaidtohavemadeBenthamandAustinintoJuristsby
virtueofsheerrepulsion。TheAnalyticalJurists，ontheother
hand，laydownunhesitatinglythatthenotionofforcehas
priorityoverthenotionoforder。Theysaythatatruelaw，the
commandofanirresistibleSovereign，enjoinsaclassofactsor
aclassofomissionseitheronasubjectoronanumber。of
subjects，placedbythecommandalikeandindifferentlyundera
legalobligation。Thecharacteristicwhichthusasamatterof
factattachestomosttruelawsofbindinganumberofpersons，
takenindifferently，toanumberofactsoromissions，determined
generally，hascausedtheterm’law’tobeextendedbymetaphor
toalluniformitiesorinvariablesuccessionsinthephysical
world，intheoperationsofthemind，orintheactionsof
mankind。LawwhenusedinsuchexpressionsastheLawofGravity
theLawofMentalAssociation，ortheLawofRentistreatedby
theAnalyticalJuristsasawordwrestedfromitstruemeaningby
aninaccuratefigurativeextension，andthesortofdisrespect
withwhichtheyspeakofitisextremelyremarkable。ButI
supposethat，ifdignityandimportancecanproperlybe
attributedtoaword，thereareinourdayfewwordsmore
dignifiedandmoreimportantthanLaw，inthesenseofthe
invariablesuccessionofphenomena，physical，mental，oreven
politico-economical。Withthismeaning，’law’entersintoagreat
dealofmodernthought，andhasalmostbecometheconditionof
itsbeingcarriedon。Itisdifficultatfirsttobelievethat
suchanexpressionas’theReignofLaw，’inthesenseinwhich
thewordshavebeenpopularisedbytheDukeofArgyll’sbook，
wouldhavebeenstronglydislikedbyAustin；buthislanguage
leaveslittledoubtonthepoint，andmorethanonceremindsus
that，thoughhisprincipalwritingsarenotmuchmorethanforty
yearsold，hewrotebeforemen’sideaswereleavenedtothe
presentdepthbythesciencesofexperimentandobservation。The
statementthat，inalllanguages，Lawprimarilymeansthecommand
ofaSovereign，andhasbeenappliedderivativelytotheorderly
sequencesofNatureisextremelydifficultofverification。and
itmaybedoubtedwhetheritsvalue，ifitbetrue，wOuldrepay
thelabourofestablishingitstruth。Thedifficultywouldbethe
greaterbecausetheknownhistoryofphilosophicalandjuridical
speculationshowsusthetwonotions，whichasamatteroffact
areassociatedwithLaw，actingandreactingononeanother。The
orderofNaturehasunquestionablybeenregardedasdeterminedby
aSovereigncommand。Manypersonstowhomthepedigreeofmuchof
modernthoughtistraceable，conceivedtheparticlesofmatter
whichmakeuptheuniverseasobeyingthecommandsofapersonal
Godjustasliterallyassubjectsobeythecommandsofa
sovereignthroughfearofapenalsanction。Ontheotherhand，
thecontemplationoforderintheexternalworldhasstrongly
influencedtheviewtakenoflawsproperbymuchofthecivilised
partofmankind。TheRomantheoryofaLawNaturalhasaffected
thewholehistoryoflaw，andthisfamoustheoryisinfact
compoundedoftwoelements，onefurnishedbyanearlyperception，
Greekinorigin，ofacertainorderandregularityinphysical
nature，andtheotherattributabletoanearlyperception，Roman
inorigin，ofacertainorderanduniformityamongthe
observancesofthehumanrace。Ineednothererepeattheproof
ofthiswhichIattemptedtogiveinavolumepublishedsome
yearsago。Nobodyisatlibertytocensuremenorcommunitiesof
menforusingwordsinanysensetheyplease，orwithasmany
meaningsastheyplease，butthedutyofthescientificenquirer
istodistinguishthemeaningsofanimportantwordfromone
another，toselectthemeaningappropriatetohisownpurposes，
andconsistentlytoemploythewordduringhisinvestigationsin
thissenseandnoother。Thelawswithwhichthestudentof
Jurisprudenceisconcernedinourowndayareundoubtedlyeither
theactualcommandsofSovereigns，understoodastheportionof
thecommunityendowedwithirresistiblecoerciveforce，orelse
theyarepracticesofmankindbroughtundertheformula’alawis
acommand，’byhelpoftheformula，’whatevertheSovereign
permits，ishiscommand。’FromthepointofviewoftheJurist，
lawisonlyassociatedwithorderthroughthenecessarycondition
ofeverytruelawthatitmustprescribeaclassofactsor
omissions，oranumberofactsandomissionsdetermined
generally；thelawwhichprescribesasingleactnotbeingatrue
law，butbeingdistinguishedasan’occasional’or’particular’
command。Law，thusdefinedandlimited，isthesubject-matterof
JurisprudenceasconceivedbytheAnalyticalJurists。Atpresent
weareonlyconcernedwiththefoundationsoftheirsystem；and
thequestionswhichIwishtoraiseinthepresentLectureare
these：hastheforcewhichcompelsobediencetoalawalwaysbeen
ofsuchanaturethatitcanreasonablybeidentifiedwiththe
coerciveforceoftheSovereign，andhavelawsalwaysbeen
characterisedbythatgeneralitywhich，itissaid，alone
connectsthemwithphysicallawsorgeneralformulasdescribing
thefactsofnature？Theseenquiriesmayseemtoyoutoleadus
farafield，butItrustyouwillperceiveintheendthatthey
haveinterestandimportance，andthattheythrowlightonthe
limitswhichmustbeassignedincertaincases，nottothe
theoreticalsoundness，buttothepracticalvalue，ofthe
speculationswehavebeendiscussing。
LetmerecurtoSovereignty，asconceivedbytheAnalytical
Jurists。ThereadersofAustin’streatisewillrememberhis
examinationofanumberofexistinggovernmentsorashewould
say，formsofpoliticalsuperiorityandinferiority，forthe
purposeofdeterminingtheexactseatofsovereigntyineachof
them。Thisisamongthemostinterestingpartsofhiswritings，
andhissagacityandoriginalityarenowheremoresignally
demonstrated。Theproblemhadbecomemuchmorecomplexthanit
waswhenHobbeswrote，andeventhanitwasatthedateof
Bentham’searlierpublications。Hobbes，apartisaninEngland，
wasakeenscientificobserverofthepoliticalphenomenaofthe
Continent，andtherethepoliticalconditionsopentohis
observationwereputtingEnglandasidepracticallylimitedto
despotismandanarchy。But，bythetimeAustinwrote，England，
probablyconsideredbyHobbesasthegroundonwhichthebattle
ofhisprincipleswastohefoughtout，hadlongsincebecomea
’limitedmonarchy，’anexpressiondislikedbyHobbes’successors
almostasmuchasthethingwasbyHobbeshimself，andmoreover
theinfluencesofthefirstFrenchRevolutionwerebeginningto
havetheirplay。Francehadlatelybecomealimitedmonarchy，and
almostalltheotherContinentalStateshadgivensignsof
becomingso。ThecomplexpoliticalmechanismoftheUnitedStates
hadarisenontheothersideoftheAtlantic，andtheevenmore
complicatedsystemsoftheGermanandSwissConfederationsin
ContinentalEurope。Theanalysisofpoliticalsocieties，forthe
purposeofdeterminingtheseatofsovereignty，hadobviously
becomemuchmoredifficult，andnothingcanexceedthe
penetrationevincedbyAustininapplyingthisanalysistoextant
examples。
NeverthelessAustinfullyrecognisestheexistenceof
communities，oraggregatesofmen，inwhichnodissectioncould
discloseapersonorgroupansweringtohisdefinitionofa
Sovereign。Inthefirstplace，likeHobbes，hefullyallowsthat
thereisastateofanarchy。Whereversuchastateisfound，the
questionofSovereigntyisbeingactivelyfoughtout，andthe
instancegivenbyAustinisthatwhichwasneverabsentfrom
Hobbes’smind，thestrugglebetweenCharlestheFirstandhis
Parliament。AnacutecriticofHobbesandAustin，whomIam
permittedtoidentifywithMrFitzjamesStephen，insiststhat
thereisaconditionofdormantanarchy，andthereservationis
doubtlessmadetomeetsuchcasesasthatoftheUnitedStates
beforetheWarofSecession。Heretheseatofsovereigntywasfor
yearsthesubjectofviolentdisputeinwordsoronpaper，and
manyeminentAmericansacquiredfamebymeasureswhich
compromisedforatimeanotoriousdifferenceofprinciple，and
adjournedastrugglewhichwasneverthelessinevitable。Itisin
factquitepossiblethattheremaybedeliberateabstinencefrom
fightingoutaquestionknowntobeundecided，andIseeno
objectiontocallingthetemporaryequilibriumthusproduceda
stateofdormantanarchy。Austinfurtheradmitsthetheoretical
possibilityofastateofnature。Hedoesnotattachtoitthe
importancewhichbelongstoitinthespeculationsofHobbesand
others，butheallowsitsexistencewhereveranumberofmen，or
ofgroupsnotnumerousenoughtobepolitical，havenotasyet
beenbroughtunderanycommonorhabituallyactingauthority。
And，inspeakinginthislastsentenceofgroupsnotnumerous
enoughtobepolitical，Ihaveintroducedthemostremarkable
exceptionallowedbyAustintotherulethatSovereigntyis
universalamongmankind。Thepassageoccursatp。237ofthe
firstvolumeofthethirdedition：——
’Letussupposethatasinglefamilyofsavageslivesin
absoluteestrangementfromeveryothercommunity。Andletus
supposethatthefather，thechiefofthisinsulatedfamily，
receiveshabitualobediencefromthemotherandchildren。Now，
sinceitisnotalimbofanotherandlargercommunity，the
societyformedbytheparentsandchildren，isclearlyan
independentsociety，and，sincetherestofitsmembers
habituallyobeyitschief，thisindependentsocietywouldforma
societypolitical，incasethenumberofitsmemberswerenot
extremelyminute。But，sincethenumberofitsmembersis
extremelyminute，itwould，Ibelieve，beesteemedasocietyina
stateofnature；thatis，asocietyconsistingofpersonsnotin
astateofsubjection。Withoutanapplicationoftheterms，which
wouldsomewhatsmackoftheridiculous，wecouldhardlystylethe
societyasocietypoliticalandindependent，theimperative
fatherandchiefamonarchorsovereign，ortheobedientmother