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