exhortedhertothesacrificewereundoubtedlyinfluencedbya
　　purelyprofessionaldisliketoherenjoymentofproperty。The
　　ancientruleofthecivillaw，whichmadehertenantforlife，
　　couldnotbegotridof，butitwascombatedbythemodern
　　institutionwhichmadeitherdutytodevoteherselftoa
　　frightfuldeath。
　　IftheStridhanoftheHindoosisaformofmarriedwomen’s
　　separateproperty，whichhasbeendislikedandpervertedbythe
　　professionalclasseswhohadthepowertomodifyit，the
　　institutionwhichwasfirstthedosoftheRomans，andisnowthe
　　dotofContinentalEurope，hasreceivedasingularamountof
　　artificialencouragement。Ihaveendeavouredtodescribetoyou
　　howitoriginated，butIhaveyettostatethatitenteredinto
　　oneofthemostfamoussocialexperimentsoftheRomanEmpire。A
　　well-knownstatuteoftheemperorAugustus，celebratedbyHorace
　　inanofficialodeastheprince’sgreatestlegislative
　　achievement，hadforitsobjecttheencouragementandregulation
　　ofmarriageandtheimpositionofpenaltiesoncelibacy。Among
　　thechiefprovisionsofthis’LexJuliaetPapiaPoppoea’——to
　　giveitsfulltitle——wasaclausecompellingopulentparentsto
　　createportions，ordotes，fortheirmarriageabledaughters。This
　　provisionofastatute，whichverydeeplyaffectedtheRomanlaw
　　inmanyways，musthavemetwithgeneralapproval，foratalater
　　datewefindthesameprincipleappliedtothedonatiopropter
　　nuptias，orsettlementonthemarriedcouplefromthehusband’s
　　side。InthematuredRomanlaw，therefore，singularasitmay
　　seemtous，parentswereunderastatutoryobligationtomake
　　settlementsontheirchildren。
　　Ithasbeenratherthefashiontospeakoftheseexperiments
　　oftheRomanEmperorsonpublicmoralityasiftheytotally
　　miscarried——Isuppose，fromsomeideathatthefailureaddedto
　　thecreditofthemoralregenerationeffectedbyChristianity。
　　But，asamatteroffact，theChristianChurchconferredfew
　　civilbenefitsofgreatermomenttoseveralgenerationsof
　　mankindthaninkeepingalivethetraditionsoftheRoman
　　legislationrespectingsettledproperty，andinstrenuously
　　exertingitselftoextendandapplytheprinciplesofthese
　　disciplinarylaws。Therecanbenoseriousquestionthat，inits
　　ultimateresult，thedisruptionoftheRomanEmpirewasvery
　　unfavourabletothepersonalandproprietarylibertyofwomen。I
　　purposelysay，’initsultimateresult，’inordertoavoida
　　learnedcontroversyastotheirpositionunderpurelyTeutonic
　　customs。Itisverypossiblethatthelaststagesoftheprocess，
　　whichitisdifficulttocallanythingbutfeudalisation，were
　　moreunfavourabletowomenthantheearlierchanges，whichwere
　　exclusivelyduetotheinfusionofGermanicusage；but，atany
　　rate，theplaceofwomenunderthenewsystemwhenfully
　　organisedwasworsethanitwasunderRomanlaw，andwouldhave
　　beenverygreatlyworsebutfortheeffortsoftheChurch。One
　　standingmonumentoftheseeffortswehaveconstantlybeforeus
　　inthepromiseofthehusbandintheMarriageservice，’Withall
　　myworldlygoods，Itheeendow；’aformulawhichsometimes
　　puzzlestheEnglishlawyer，fromitswantofcorrespondencewith
　　anythingwhichhefindsamongtheoldestrulesofEnglishlaw。
　　Thewordshave，indeed，beenoccasionallyusedinEnglishlegal
　　treatises，asthetextofadisquisitiononthedistinction
　　betweenRomandos，towhichtheyaresupposedtorefer，andthe
　　doarium，whichisthe’dower’oflandsknowntoEnglishlaw。The
　　factis，however，thatthetraditionwhichtheChurchwas
　　carryingonwasthegeneraltraditionoftheRomandos，the
　　practicalobjectbeingtosecureforthewifeaprovisionof
　　whichthehusbandcouldnotwantonlydepriveher，andwhichwould
　　remaintoherafterhisdeath。Thebodiesofcustomarylawwhich
　　werebuiltupoverEuropewere，inallmattersoffirst
　　principle，underecclesiasticalinfluences；buttheparticular
　　applicationsofaprincipleonceacceptedwereextremelyvarious。
　　ThedoweroflandsinEnglishlaw，ofwhichhardlyashadow
　　remains，butunderwhichawifesurvivingherhusbandtooka
　　thirdoftherentsandprofitsofhisestatesforlife，belonged
　　toaclassofinstitutionswidelyspreadoverWesternEurope，
　　verysimilaringeneralcharacter，oftendesignatedasdoarium，
　　butdifferingconsiderablyindetail。Theyunquestionablyhad
　　theiroriginintheendeavoursoftheChurchtorevivetheRoman
　　institutionofthecompulsorydos，which，inthissense，produced
　　thedoarium，eventhoughthelattermayhavehadapartially
　　Germanicorigin，andeventhoughitoccasionallyassumeasit
　　unquestionablydoesashapeverydifferentfromtheoriginal
　　institution。Imyselfbelievethatanothereffectofthis
　　persistentpreachingandencouragementistobefoundinthe
　　strongfeelingwhichisdiffusedthroughmuchofEurope，and
　　speciallythroughtheLatinisedsocieties，infavourofdotation，
　　orportioningofdaughters，afeelingwhichseldomfailsto
　　astonishapersonacquaintedwithsuchacountryasFrancebyits
　　remarkableintensity。Itisaneconomicalpowerofconsiderable
　　importance，foritistheprincipalsourceofthosehabitsof
　　savingandhoardingwhichcharacterisetheFrenchpeople，andI
　　regarditasdescended，byalongchainofsuccession，fromthe
　　obligatoryprovisionsofthemarriagelawoftheEmperor
　　Augustus。
　　Theimportanceandinterestofoursubject，whentreatedin
　　allitsbearingsandthroughoutitswholehistory，arequite
　　enoughtoexcuseme，Itrust，forhavingdetainedyouwithan
　　accountofitsobscurebeginnings。Ithasbeensaidthatthe
　　degreeinwhichthepersonalimmunityandproprietarycapacityof
　　womenarerecognisedinaparticularstateorcommunityisatest
　　ofitsdegreeofadvanceincivilisation；and，thoughthe
　　assertionissometimesmadewithoutthequalificationswhichare
　　necessarytogiveitvalue，itisveryfarindeedfrombeinga
　　meregallantcommonplace。For，inasmuchasnoclassofsimilar
　　importanceandextentwas，intheinfancyofsociety，placedina
　　positionofsuchabsolutedependenceastheothersex，thedegree
　　inwhichthisdependencehasstepbystepbeenvoluntarily
　　modifiedandrelaxed，servesundoubtedlyasaroughmeasureof
　　tribal，social，nationalcapacityforself-control——ofthat
　　samecontrolwhichproduceswealthbysubduingthenatural
　　appetiteoflivingforthepresent，andwhichfructifiesinart
　　andlearningthroughsubordinatingamaterialandimmediatetoa
　　remote，intangible，andspiritualenjoyment。Theassertion，then，
　　thatthereisarelationbetweencivilisationandtheproprietary
　　capacitiesofwomenisonlyaformofthetruththateveryoneof
　　thoseconquests，thesumofwhichwecallcivilisation，isthe
　　resultofcurbingsomeoneofthestrongest，becausetheprimary，
　　impulsesofhumannature。Ifwewereaskedwhythetwosocieties
　　withwhichwehavebeenconcerned——theHindoosontheonehand，
　　andtheRomansandalltheracestowhichtheyhavebequeathed
　　theirinstitutionsontheother——havehadsowidelydifferenta
　　history，noreplycanbeveryconfidentlygiven，sodifficultis
　　it，amongthevastvarietyofinfluencesactingongreat
　　assemblagesofmen，tosingleoutanyoneoranydefinitenumber
　　ofthem，andtobesurethatthesehaveoperatedmorepowerfully
　　thantherest。Yet，ifitwereabsolutelynecessarytogivean
　　answer，itwouldconsistinpointingtothedifferenceintheir
　　socialhistorywhichhasbeenthesubjectofthislecture，andin
　　observingthatonesteadilycarriedforward，whiletheother
　　recoiledfrom，theseriesofchangeswhichputanendtothe
　　seclusionanddegradationofanentiresex。
　　Sovereignty
　　ThehistoricaltheoriescommonlyreceivedamongEnglish
　　lawyershavedonesomuchharmnotonlytothestudyoflawbut
　　tothestudyofhistory，thatanaccountoftheoriginandgrowth
　　ofourlegalsystem，foundedontheexaminationofnewmaterials
　　andthere-examinationofoldones，isperhapsthemosturgently
　　neededofalladditionstoEnglishknowledge。Butnexttoanew
　　historyoflaw，whatwemostrequireisanewphilosophyoflaw。
　　Ifourcountryevergivesbirthtosuchaphilosophy，weshall
　　probablyoweittotwoadvantages。Thefirstofthemisour
　　possessionofalegalsystemwhichformanypurposesmaybe
　　consideredindigenous。Ournationalpride，whichhassometimes
　　retardedorlimitedouradvanceinjuridicalenquiry，haskept
　　ourlawsingularlypurefrommixturewiththestreamoflegal
　　rulesflowingfromthegreatfountainoftheRomanCorpusJuris，
　　andthus，whenweplaceitinjuxtapositionwithanyother
　　Europeanlegalsystem，theresultsofthecomparisonarefarmore
　　fruitfulofinstructionthanthoseobtainedbycontrastingthe
　　variousContinentalbodiesoflawwithoneanother。Thesecond
　　advantageIbelievetoconsistinthegrowingfamiliarityof
　　Englishmenwiththeinvestigationsoftheso-calledAnalytical
　　Jurists，ofwhomthemostconsiderableareJeremyBenthamand
　　JohnAustin。Ofthisadvantagewehaveamonopoly。Benthamseems
　　tobeexclusivelyknowninFranceandGermanyastheauthorofan
　　unpopularsystemofmorals。Austinisapparentlynotknownat
　　all。YettoBentham，andeveninahigherdegreetoAustin，the
　　worldisindebtedfortheonlyexistingattempttoconstructa
　　systemofjurisprudencebystrictscientificprocessandtofound
　　it，noton*prioriassumption，butontheobservation，
　　comparison，andanalysisofthevariouslegalconceptions。There
　　isnotthesmallestnecessityforacceptingalltheconclusions
　　ofthesegreatwriterswithimplicitdeference，butthereisthe
　　strongestnecessityforknowingwhatthoseconclusionsare。They
　　areindispensable，iffornootherobject，forthepurposeof
　　clearingthehead。
　　AnimportantdistinctionbetweenBenthamandAustinisnotas
　　oftenrecognisedasitoughttobe。Benthaminthemainisa
　　writeronlegislation。Austininthemainisawriteron
　　jurisprudence，Benthamischieflyconcernedwithlawasitmight
　　beandoughttobe。Austinischieflyconcernedwithlawasit
　　is。Eachtrespassesoccasionallyonthedomainoftheother。
　　UnlessBenthamhadwrittenthetreatisecalledthe’Fragmenton
　　Government，’Austin’s’ProvinceofJurisprudenceDetermined，’
　　whichsetsforththebasisofhissystem，wouldneverprobably
　　havebeencomposed。Ontheotherhand，Austin，inhissingular
　　discussionofthetheoryofutilityasanindextotheLawof
　　God，hasenteredonaninvestigationoftheclassfollowedby
　　Bentham。StillthedescriptionwhichIhavegivenoftheir
　　objectsissufficientlycorrectasageneraldescription，and
　　thoseobjectsarewidelydifferent。Benthamaimsatthe
　　improvementofthelawtobeeffectedbytheapplicationofthe
　　principlesnowindissolublyassociatedwithhisname。Almostall
　　ofhismoreimportantsuggestionshavebeenadoptedbythe
　　EnglishLegislature，buttheprocessofengraftingonthelaw
　　whattoeachsuccessivegenerationseemtobeimprovementsisin
　　itselfofindefiniteduration，andmaygoon，andpossiblywill
　　goon，aslongasthehumanracelasts。Austin’sundertakingis
　　moremodest。Itwouldbecompleted，ifaCodewereproduced
　　perfectlylogicalinorderofarrangementandperfectlylucidin
　　statementofruleJurisprudence，thescienceofpositivelaw，is
　　sometimesspokenofnowadaysasifitwouldbringthesubstance
　　ofthelawintoastateofindefiniteperfection。Itwould
　　doubtless，ifitwerecarriedfar，leadindirectlytogreatlegal
　　reformsbydispellingobscuritiesanddissipatingdelusions，but
　　theinvestigationoftheprinciplesonwhichthedirect
　　improvementofsubstantivelegalrulesshouldbeconducted
　　belongsneverthelessnottothetheoristonjurisprudencebutto
　　thetheoristonlegislation。