lect12- 第2部分

analysis　would　have　been　affected；　if　he　had　begun　in　his　first


Lecture　with　the　examination　of　the　nature　of　Sovereignty。　This


examination　he　placed　in　the　Sixth；　which；　so　far　as　the


'Province　of　Jurisprudence'　is　concerned；　is　the　last　of　his


Lectures。


　　　　I　believe　I　may　assume　that　most　of　my　hearers　are　familiar


with　the　general　character　of　the　investigation　prosecuted　by


Austin　in　the　Treatise　to　which　I　have　referred；　but；　as　his


definitions　are　not　easily　carried　in　the　memory　in　their


complete　shape；　I　will　give　his　descriptions　of　an　Independent


Political　Society　and　of　Sovereignty；　the　two　conceptions　being


interdependent　and　inseparable　from　one　another。


　　　　'If　（he　says）　a　determinate　human　superior；　not　in　the　habit


of　obedience　to　a　like　superior；　receive　habitual　obedience　from


the　bulk　of　a　given　society；　that　determinate　superior　is


Sovereign　in　that　society；　and　the　society；　including　the


superior；　is　a　society　political　and　independent。'　


　　　　He　then　proceeds：　'To　that　determinate　superior　the　other


members　of　the　society　are　subject；　or　on　that　determinate


superior　the　other　members　of　the　society　are　dependent。　The


position　of　its　other　members　towards　that　determinate　superior


is　a　state　of　subjection　or　a　state　of　dependence。　The　mutual


relation　which　subsists　between　that　superior　and　them；　may　be


styled　the　relation　of　Sovereign　and　Subject；　or　the　relation　of


Sovereignty　and　Subjection。'


　　　　I　may　perhaps　save　the　necessity　for　part　of　the


amplification　and　explanation　of　these　definitions　contained　in


the　Chapter　in　which　they　occur；　if　I　state　Austin's　doctrine　of


Sovereignty　in　another　way　　more　popularly；　though　without；　I


think；　any　substantial　inaccuracy。　It　is　as　follows：　There　is；　in


every　independent　political　community　　that　is；　in　every


political　community　not　in　the　habit　of　obedience　to　a　superior


above　itself　　some　single　person　or　some　combination　of　persons


which　has　the　power　of　compelling　the　other　members　of　the


community　to　do　exactly　as　it　pleases。　This　single　person　or


group　　this　individual　or　this　collegiate　Sovereign　（to　employ


Austin's　phrase）　　may　be　found　in　every　independent　political


community　as　certainly　as　the　centre　of　gravity　in　a　mass　of


matter。　If　the　community　be　violently　or　voluntarily　divided　into


a　number　of　separate　fragments；　then；　as　soon　as　each　fragment


has　settled　down　（perhaps　after　an　interval　of　anarchy）　into　a


state　of　equilibrium；　the　Sovereign　will　exist　and　with　proper


care　will　be　discoverable　in　each　of　the　now　independent


portions。　The　Sovereignty　over　the　North　American　Colonies　of


Great　Britain　had　its　seat　in　one　place　before　they　became　the


United　States；　in　another　place　afterwards；　but　in　both　cases


there　was　a　discoverable　Sovereign　somewhere。　This　Sovereign；


this　person　or　combination　of　persons；　universally　occurring　in


all　independent　political　communities；　has　in　all　such


communities　one　characteristic；　common　to　all　the　shapes


Sovereignty　may　take；　the　possession　of　irresistible　force；　not


necessarily　exerted　but　capable　of　being　exerted。　According　to


the　terminology　preferred　by　Austin；　the　Sovereign；　if　a　single


person；　is　or　should　be　called　a　Monarch；　if　a　small　group；　the


name　is　an　Oligarchy；　if　a　group　of　considerable　dimensions；　an


Aristocracy。　if　very　large　and　numerous；　a　Democracy。　Limited


Monarchy；　a　phrase　perhaps　more　fashionable　in　Austin's　day　than


it　is　now；　is　abhorred　by　Austin；　and　the　Government　of　Great


Britain　he　classes　with　Aristocracies。　That　which　all　the　forms


of　Sovereignty　have　in　common　is　the　power　（the　power　but　not


necessarily　the　will）　to　put　compulsion　without　limit　on　subjects


or　fellow…subjects。　It　is　sometimes　extremely　difficult　to


discover　the　Sovereign　in　a　given　State；　and；　when　he　or　it　is


discovered；　he　may　fall　under　no　recognised　designation；　but；


where　there　is　an　independent　political　society　not　in　a


condition　of　anarchy；　the　Sovereign　is　certainly　there。　The


question　of　determining　his　character　is；　you　will　understand；


always　a　question　of　fact。　It　is　never　a　question　of　law　or


morals。　He　who；　when　a　particular　person　or　group　is　asserted　to


constitute　the　Sovereign　in　a　given　community；　denies　the


proposition　on　the　ground　that　such　Sovereignty　is　an　usurpation


or　a　violation　of　constitutional　principle；　has　completely　missed


Austin's　point　of　view。


　　　　The　definitions　which　I　read　from　the　Sixth　Lecture　furnish


Austin's　tests　for　discovering　the　seat　of　Sovereignty　in


independent　states。　I　will　again　refer　to　a　few　of　the　most


important　of　them；　though　very　briefly。


　　　　First；　the　Sovereign　is　a　determinate　human　superior。　He　is


not　necessarily　a　single　person；　in　the　modern　Western　world　he


is　very　rarely　so；　but　he　must　have　so　much　of　the　attributes　of


a　single　person　as　to　be　determinate。　If　he　is　not　a　single


person；　he　must　be　a　number　of　persons　capable　of　acting　in　a


corporate　or　collegiate　capacity。　This　part　of　the　definition　is


absolutely　necessary；　since　the　Sovereign　must　effect　his


exertions　of　power；　must　issue　his　orders；　by　a　definite　exercise


of　his　will。　The　possession　of　physical　power；　which　is　one


characteristic　of　Sovereignty；　has　as　matter　of　historical　fact


repeatedly　been　for　a　time　in　the　hands　of　a　number　of　persons


not　determinate；　not　so　connected　together　as　to　be　capable　of


exercising　volition；　but　such　a　state　of　things　Austin　would　call


anarchy；　though　it　might　not　have　all　the　usually　recognised


symptoms　of　a　revolutionary　interval。　At　the　same　time；　the


limitation　of　Sovereignty　to　determinate　groups；　when　the


Sovereign　is　not　an　individual；　is　extremely　important；　since　it


qualities　the　notion　of　Sovereignty　by　rendering　it　subject　to


the　various　artifices　by　which　an　exercise　of　volition　is


elicited　from　a　corporate　body。　Familiar　to　us　as　is　the　practice


of　taking　the　opinion　of　a　majority　as　the　opinion　of　an　entire


group；　and　natural　as　it　seems；　nothing　can　be　more　artificial。


　　　　Again；　the　bulk　of　the　society　must　obey　the　superior　who　is


to　be　called　Sovereign。　Not　the　whole　of　the　society；　for　in　that


case　Sovereignty　would　be　impossible；　but　the　bulk；　the　large


majority；　must　obey。　After　the　accession　of　the　House　of　Hanover


to　the　British　throne；　a　certain　number　of　Jacobites　and　a


considerable　portion　of　the　Scottish　Highlanders　habitually


disobeyed　or　disregarded　the　commands　of　the　British　Crown　and


Parliament；　but　the　bulk　of　the　nation；　including　no　doubt　the


bulk　of　the　Jacobites　themselves；　gave　to　these　commands　a


practical　obedience。　On　Austin's　principles；　therefore；　there　is


not　the　least　ground　for　questioning　the　Sovereignty　of　George


the　First　and　Second　and　of　the　Parliaments　elected　at　their


summons。　The　Jacobite　view；　that　the　Hanoverian　Kings　were


exclusively　Sovereign　in　Hanover；　would　at　once　be　throw　aside　by


Austin　as　not　raising　that　question　of　fact　which　is　alone


disputable　under　his　system。


　　　　Next；　the　Sovereign　must　receive　an　habitual　obedience　from


the　bulk　of　the　community。　In　European　societies　professing　the


Roman　Catholic　faith；　the　great　majority　of　the　population


receives　a　variety　of　directions　on　points　of　personal　conduct；


either　mediately　or　immediately；　from　the　See　of　Rome。　But；


compared　with　the　number　of　times　it　submits　itself　to　the　laws


of　the　country　it　inhabits；　its　obedience　to　these　extrinsic


commands　is　only　occasional；　and　not　habitual。　At　the　same　time　a


dim　appreciation　of　the　principles　brought　into　light　by　Austin


may　be　detected　in　several　famous　ecclesiastical　controversies；


which　sometimes　tend　to　become　disputes　whether　the　obedience　to


the　See　of　Rome　which　is　actually　paid　is　or　is　not　so　frequent


as　to　fall　under　the　description　of　habitual。


　　　　A　further　characteristic　of　Sovereignty　is　immunity　from　the


control　of　every　other　human　superior。　The　limitation　is


obviously　necessary；　for　otherwise　the　Governor…General　of　India


in　Council　would　be　Sovereign；　and　indeed　would　exhibit　a　closer


correspondence　with　the　more　salient　features　of　Sovereignty　than


almost　any　other　potentate　on　the　face　of　the　globe。


　　　　Those　who　have　observed　with　what　slowness　definite


conceptions　are　developed　in　the　field　of　history　and　politics


will　be　prepared　to　hear　that　this　whole　view　of　the　nature　of


Sovereignty　is　older　than　Austin's　work。　But；　so　far　as　my　own


knowledge　extends；　I　do　not　think　that　any　material　portion　of　it


is　older　than　Hobbes。　On　the　other　hand；　in　the　Leviathan　of


Hobbes　and　in　the　Chapter　De　Cive　in　his　Treatise　first　published


in　Latin；　called　the　Elementa　Philosophiae；　the