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　strongly　suggested　by　a　certain　class　of　facts；
  particularly　by　the　political　facts　of　the　Western　and　Modern
  world；　but　all　the　relevant　facts；　it　must　be　recollected；　have
  not　been　fully　observed。　The　whole　world；　of　which　theorists　on
  human　nature　are　extremely　apt　to　forget　considerably　more　than
  half；　and　the　entire　history　of　the　whole　world；　would　have　to　be
  examined　before　we　could　be　quite　sure　of　the　facts；　and；　if　this
  were　done；　it　may　be　that　a　great　n　umber　of　the　facts　would　not
  so　strongly　suggest　the　conclusion；　or；　as　I　myself　think；　the
  assertion　which　we　are　considering　would　not　so　much　be　shown　to
  be　false　as　to　be　only　verbally　true；　and　therefore　without　the
  value　which　it　possesses　in　societies　of　the　type　to　which　our
  own　belongs。　An　assertion；　however；　which　the　great　Analytical
  Jurists　cannot　be　charged　with　making；　but　which　some　of　their
  disciples　go　very　near　to　hazarding；　that　the　Sovereign　person　or
  group　actually　wields　the　stored…up　force　of　society　by　an
  uncontrolled　exercise　of　will；　is　certainly　never　in　accordance
  with　fact。　A　despot　with　a　disturbed　brain　is　the　sole
  conceivable　example　of　such　Sovereignty。　The　vast　mass　of
  influences；　which　we　may　call　for　shortness　moral；　perpetually
  shapes；　limits；　or　forbids　the　actual　direction　of　the　forces　of
  society　by　its　Sovereign。　This　is　the　point　which；　of　all　others；
  it　is　practically　most　necessary　that　the　student　should　bear　in
  mind；　because　it　does　most　to　show　what　the　Austinian　view　of
  Sovereignty　really　is　　that　it　is　the　result　of　Abstraction。　It
  is　arrived　at　by　throwing　aside　all　the　characteristics　and
  attributes　of　Government　and　Society　except　one；　and　by
  connecting　all　forms　of　political　superiority　together　through
  their　common　possession　of　force。　The　elements　neglected　in　the
  process　are　always　important；　sometimes　of　extreme　importance；
  for　they　consist　of　all　the　influences　controlling　human　action
  except　force　directly　applied　or　directly　apprehended　；　but　the
  operation　of　throwing　them　aside　for　purposes　of　classification
  is；　I　need　hardly　say；　perfectly　legitimate　philosophically；　and
  is　only　the　application　of　a　method　in　ordinary　scientific　use。
  To　put　the　same　thing　in　another　way；　that　which　we　reject　in
  the　process　of　abstraction　by　which　the　conception　of　Sovereignty
  is　reached　is　the　entire　history　of　each　community。　First　of　all；
  it　is　the　history；　the　whole　historical　antecedents；　of　each
  society　by　which　it　has　been　determined　where；　in　what　person　or
  group；　the　power　of　using　the　social　force　is　to　reside。　The
  theory　of　Sovereignty　neglects　the　mode　in　which　the　result　has
  been　arrived　at；　and　thus　is　enabled　to　class　together　the
  coercive　authority　of　the　great　King　of　Persia；　of　the　Athenian
  Demos；　of　the　later　Roman　Emperors；　of　the　Russian　Czar；　and　of
  the　Crow