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。