wehaveheardofavillageHampden，butavillageHobbesis
inconceivable。BythetimeBenthamwrote，andwhilehewas
writing，theconditionswhichsuggesttheAnalyticalSystemof
Jurisprudencepresentedthemselvesstillmoredistinctly。A
Sovereignwhowasademocracycommenced，andaSovereignwhowas
adespotcompleted，theCodificationofthelawsofFrance。There
hadneverbeforeinthemodernworldbeensostrikingan
exemplificationofthepropositionthat，whattheSovereign
permits，hecommands，becausehecouldatanytimesubstitutean
expresscommandforhistacitpermission，norsoimpressivea
lessoninthefar-reachingandonthewholemostbeneficial
resultswhichmightbeexpectedfromtheincreasedactivityof
Sovereignsinlegislationproper。
Nogeniusesofanequallyhighordersocompletelydivorced
themselvesfromhistoryasHobbesandBentham，orappear，tome
atallevents，socompletelyundertheimpressionthattheworld
hadalwaysbeenmoreorlessastheysawit。Benthamcouldnever
getridoftheideathatimperfectorperverseapplicationsof
hisprincipleshadproducedmanythingswithwhichtheyhad
nothingwhatevertodo，andIknownomorestrikinginstanceof
anhistoricalmisconceptionthoughatthetimeaverynatural
onethanHobbes’scomparisonofprivilegedcorporationsand
organisedlocalgroupstotheparasiteswhichthephysiologythen
becomingfashionablehadshowntoliveintheinternalmembranes
ofthehumanbody。Wenowknowthat，ifweareforcedtousea
physiologicalillustration，thesegroupsmustratherbecompared
totheprimarycellsoutofwhichthewholehumanbodyhasbeen
builtup。
But，iftheAnalyticalJuristsfailedtoseeagreatdeal
whichcanonlybeexplainedbythehelpofhistory，theysawa
greatdealwhicheveninourdayisimperfectlyseenbythose
who，sotospeak，letthemselvesdriftwithhistory。Sovereignty
andLaw，regardedasfacts，hadonlygraduallyassumedashapein
whichtheyansweredtotheconceptionofthemformedbyHobbes，
Bentham，andAustin，butthecorrespondencereallydidexistby
theirtime，andwastendingconstantlytobecomemoreperfect。
Theywerethusabletoframeajuridicalterminologywhichhad
foronevirtuethatitwasrigidlyconsistentwithitself，and
foranotherthat，ifitdidnotcompletelyexpressfacts，the
qualificationsofitsaccuracywereneverseriousenoughto
depriveitofvalueandtendedmoreovertobecomelessandless
importantastimewenton。Noconceptionoflawandsocietyhas
everremovedsuchamassofundoubteddelusion。Theforceatthe
disposalofSovereignsdidinfactactlargelythroughlawsas
understoodbytheseJurists，butitactedconfusedly，
hesitatingly，withmanymistakesandvastomissions。Theyforthe
firsttimesawallthatitwascapableofeffecting，ifitwas
appliedboldlyandconsistently。Allthathasfollowedisa
testimonytotheirsagacity，Idonotknowasinglelaw-reform
effectedsinceBentham’sdaywhichcannotbetracedtohis
influence；butastillmorestartlingproofoftheclearingof
thebrainproducedbythissystem，eveninanearlierstage，may
befoundinHobbes。Inhis’DialogueoftheCommonLaws，’he
arguesforafusionoflawandequity，aregistrationoftitles
toland，andasystematicpenalcode——threemeasureswhichwe
areontheeveofseeingcarriedoutatthisverymoment。
ThecapitalfactinthemechanismofmodernStatesisthe
energyoflegislatures。Untilthefactexisted，Idonot，asI
havesaid，believethatthesystemofHobbes，BenthamandAustin
couldhavebeenconceived；whereveritexhibitsitself
imperfectly，Ithinkthatthesystemisneverproperly
appreciated。ThecomparativeneglectwithwhichGermanwriters
havetreateditseemstometobeexplainedbythecomparative
recencyoflegislativeactivityinGermany。Itishowever
impossibletoobserveontheconnectionbetweenlegislationand
theanalyticaltheoryoflawwithouthavingthemindcarriedto
thefamousadditionwhichBenthamandAustinengraftedonthe
speculationsofHobbes。Thisadditionconsistedincouplingthem
withthedoctrineortheoryofutility——ofthegreatest
happinessofthegreatestnumber——consideredasthebasisof
lawandmorals。What，then，istheconnection，essentialor
historical，betweentheutilitariantheoryandtheanalytical
theoryoflaw？Icertainlydonotaffecttobeable，especially
atthecloseofalecture，toexhaustasubjectofsuchextent
anddifficulty，butIhaveafewwordstosayofit。Tomyself
themostinterestingthingaboutthetheoryofUtilityisthatit
presupposesthetheoryofEquality。Thegreatestnumberisthe
greatestnumberofmentakenasunits；’oneshallonlycountfor
one，’saidBenthamemphaticallyandoverandoveragain。Infact，
themostconclusiveobjectiontothedoctrinewouldconsistin
denyingthisequality；andIhavemyselfheardanIndianBrahmin
disputeitonthegroundthat，accordingtotheclearteachingof
hisreligion，aBrahminwasentitledtotwentytimesasmuch
happinessasanybodyelse。Nowhowdidthisfundamental
assumptionofequality，whichImayobservebroadly
distinguishesBentham’stheoriesfromsomesystemswithwhichit
issupposedtosharethereproachofhavingpureselfishnessfor
itsbase——howdiditsuggestitselftoBentham’smind？Hesaw
plainly——nobodymoreclearly——thatmenarenotasafact
equal；thepropositionthatmenarebynatureequalheexpressly
denouncedasananarchicalsophism。Whencethencametheequality
whichisapostulateofhisfamousdoctrineaboutthegreatest
happinessofthegreatestnumber？Iventuretothinkthatthis
doctrineisnothingmorethanaworkingruleoflegislation，and
thatinthisformitwasoriginallyconceivedbyBentham。Assume
anumerousandtolerablyhomogeneouscommunity——assumea
Sovereignwhosecommandstakealegislativeshapeassumegreat
energy，actualorpotential，inthislegislature——theonly
possible，theonlyconceivable，principlewhichcanguide
legislationonagreatscaleisthegreatesthappinessofthe
greatestnumber。Itisinfactaconditionoflegislationwhich，
likecertaincharacteristicsoflaws，hasgrownoutofthe
distancefromwhichsovereignpoweractsuponsubjectsinmodern
politicalsocieties，andofthenecessityunderwhichitis
therebyplacedofneglectingdifferences，evenrealdifferences，
betweentheunitsofwhichtheyarecomposed。Benthamwasin
truthneitherajuristnoramoralistinthepropersenseofthe
word。Hetheorisesnotonlawbutonlegislation；whencarefully
examined，hemaybeseentobealegislatoreveninmorals。No
doubthislanguageseemssometimestoimplythatheisexplaining
moralphenomena；inrealityhewishestoalterorre-arrangethem
accordingtoaworkingrulegatheredfromhisreflectionson
legislation。Thistransferofhisworkingrulefromlegislation
tomoralityseemstomethetruegroundofthecriticismsto
whichBenthamisjustlyopenasananalystofmoralfacts。