lect12-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！




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　analysis　of


Government　and　Society　and　the　determination　of　Sovereignty　are


so　nearly　completed　that　little　could　be　added　to　them　by　Bentham


and　Austin。　The　originality　of　these　later　writers；　and　more


particularly　of　Austin；　resides　in　their　much　fuller　examination


of　the　conceptions　dependent　on　the　notion　of　Sovereignty　


positive　law；　positive　duty；　sanction　and　right　　in　setting


forth　the　relations　of　these　conceptions　to　others　superficially


resembling　them；　in　combating　objections　to　the　theory　by　which


the　entire　group　of　notions　are　connected　together；　and　in


applying　this　theory　to　certain　complex　states　of　fact　which　had


arisen　since　Hobbes　wrote。　There　is；　however；　one　great


difference　between　Hobbes　and　his　latest　successor。　The　process


of　Hobbes　was　scientific；　but　his　object　was　less　scientific　than


political。　When；　with　a　keenness　of　intuition　and　lucidity　of


statement　which　have　never　been　rivalled；　he　has　made　out　a　case


for　the　universal　theoretical　existence　of　Sovereignty；　it


becomes　clear　that　he　has；　to　say　the　least；　a　strong　preference


for　monarchies　over　aristocracies　and　democracies；　or　（to　use　the


phraseology　of　the　school　which　he　founded）　for　individual　over


corporate　Sovereignty。　Those　of　his　intellectual　followers　who


would　have　repudiated　his　politics　have　often　asserted　that　he


has　been　misunderstood；　and　no　doubt　some　superficial　readers


have　supposed　that　he　was　pointing　at　despotism　when　he　was


really　referring　to　the　essentially　unqualified　power　of　the


Sovereign　whatever　the　form　of　the　Sovereignty。　But　I　do　not


think　it　can　in　candour　be　denied　that　his　strong　dislike　of　the


Long　Parliament　and　of　the　English　Common　law；　as　the　great


instrument　of　resistance　to　the　Stuart　Kings；　has　occasionally


coloured　the　language　which　he　uses　in　examining　the　nature　of


Sovereignty；　Law；　and　Anarchy；　nor　is　it　matter　for　surprise　that


he　should　have　been　charged　during　his　life　with　having　devised


his　system　with　the　secret　intention　of　making　his　peace　with　the


Protector；　though　the　accusation　itself　is　sufficiently　refuted


by　dates。　But　Austin's　object　is　strictly　scientific。　If　he　has


fallen　into　errors；　he　has　been　led　into　them　by　his　philosophy；


and　his　language　scarcely　ever　betrays　the　colour　of　his


political　opinions。


　　　　Another　considerable　difference　is　this。　Hobbes；　it　is　well


known；　speculated　on　the　origin　of　Government　and　Sovereignty。　It


is　the　one　fact　which　some　persons　seem　to　have　learned　about


him；　and　they　appear　to　think　his　philosophy　sufficiently


condemned　by　it。　But　Austin　barely　enters　on　this　enquiry；。　and


indeed　he　occasionally；　though　perhaps　inadvertently；　uses


language　which　almost　seems　to　imply　that　Sovereignty　and　the


conceptions　dependent　on　it　have　an　*　priori　existence。　Now　in


this　matter　I　myself　hold　that　the　method　of　Hobbes　was　correct。


It　is　true　that　nothing　can　be　more　worthless　in　itself　than


Hobbes's　conjectural　account　of　the　origin　of　society　and


government。　Mankind；　he　asserts；　were　originally　in　a　state　of


war。　They　then　made　a　compact　under　which　every　man　abandoned　his


powers　of　aggression；　and　the　result　was　Sovereignty；　and　through


Sovereignty　law；　peace；　and　order。　The　theory　is　open　to　every


sort　of　objection。　There　is　no　evidence　of　any　stage　of　the


supposed　history；　and　the　little　we　know　of　primitive　man


contradicts　it。　The　universal　disorder　of　the　race　in　its　infancy


may　be　true　of　the　contests　of　tribe　with　tribe　and　of　family


with　family；　but　it　is　not　true　of　the　relations　of　individual


man　with　individual　man；　whom　we；　on　the　contrary；　first　discern


living　together　under　a　regimen　which；　if　we　are　compelled　to


employ　modern　phraseology；　we　must　call　one　of　ultra…legality。


And；　in　addition；　the　theory　is　open　to　precisely　the　same


objection　as　the　counter…hypothesis　of　Locke；　that　it　antedates


the　modern　juridical　conception　of　Contract。　But　still　I　think


that　Hobbes　did　correctly　in　addressing　himself　to　the　problem；


though　he　did　little　to　solve　it。　The　duty　of　enquiring；　if　not


how　Sovereignty　arose；　at　all　events　through　what　stages　it　has


passed；　is　in　my　judgment　indispensable。　It　is　only　thus　that　we


can　assure　ourselves　in　what　degree　the　results　of　the　Austinian


analysis　tally　with　facts。


　　　　There　is；　in　truth；　nothing　more　important　to　the　student　of


jurisprudence　than　that　he　should　carefully　consider　how　far　the


observed　facts　of　human　nature　and　society　bear　out　the


assertions　which　are　made　or　seem　to　be　made　about　Sovereignty　by


the　Analytical　Jurists。　To　begin　with；　these　assertions　must　be


disentangled　from　one　another。　The　first　of　them　is　that；　in


every　independent　community　of　men；　there　resides　the　power　of


acting　with　irresistible　force　on　the　several　members　of　that


community。　This　may　be　accepted　as　actual　fact。　If　all　the


members　of　the　community　had　equal　physical　strength　and　were


unarmed；　the　power　would　be　a　mere　result　from　the　superiority　of


numbers；　but；　as　a　matter。　of　fact；　various　causes；　of　which　much


the　most　important　have　been　the　superior　physical　strength　and


the　superior　armament　of　portions　of　the　community　have　conferred


on　numerical　minorities　the　power　of　applying　irresistible


pressure　to　the　individuals　who　make　up　the　community　as　a　whole。


The　next　assertion　is　that；　in　every　independent　political


community；　that　is　in　every　independent　community　neither　in　a


state　of　nature　on　the　one　hand　nor　in　a　state　of　anarchy　on　the


other；　the　power　of　using　or　directing　the　irresistible　force


stored…up　in　the　society　resides　in　some　person　or　combination　of


persons　who　belong　to　the　society　themselves。　The　truth　of　this


assertion　is