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