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！
icant implications。 One is that State…authority as thus derived； is a means to an end； and has no validity save as subserving that end： if the end is not subserved； the authority； by the hypothesis； does not exist。 The other is that the end for which the authority exists； as thus specified； is the enforcement of justice the maintenance of equitable relations。 The reasoning yields no warrant for other coercion over citizens than that which is required for preventing direct aggressions； and those indirect aggressions constituted by breaches of contract； to which； if we add protection against eternal enemies； the entire function implied by Hobbes's derivation of sovereign authority is comprehended。 Hobbes argued in the interests of absolute monarchy。 His modern admirer； Austin； had for his aim to derive the authority of law from the unlimited sovereignty of one man； or of a number of men； small or large compared with the whole community。 Austin was originally in the army； and it has been truly remarked that 〃the permanent traces left〃 may be seen in his Province of Jurisprudence。 When； undeterred by the exasperating pedantries the endless distinctions and definitions and repetitions which serve but to hide his essential doctrines； we ascertain what these are； it becomes manifest that he assimilates civil authority to military authority： taking for granted that the one； as the other； is above question in respect of both origin and range。 To get justification for positive law； he takes us back to the absolute sovereignty of the power imposing it a monarch； an aristocracy； or that larger body of men who have votes in a democracy； for such a body also； he styles the sovereign； in contrast with the remaining portion of the community which； from incapacity or other cause； remains subject。 And having affirmed； or； rather； taken for granted； the unlimited authority of the body； simple or compound； small or large； which he styles sovereign； he； of course； has no difficulty in deducing the legal validity of its edicts； which he calls positive law。 But the problem is simply moved a step further back and there left unsolved。 The true question is Whence the sovereignty？ What is the assignable warrant for this unqualified supremacy assumed by one； or by a small number； or by a large number； over the rest？ A critic might fitly say 〃We will dispense with your process of deriving positive law from unlimited sovereignty： the sequence is obvious enough。 But first prove your unlimited sovereignty。〃 To this demand there is no response。 Analyse his assumption； and the doctrine of Austin proves to have no better basis than that of Hobbes。 In the absence of admitted divine descent or appointment； neither single…headed ruler nor many…headed ruler can produce such credentials as the claim to unlimited sovereignty implies。
〃But surely；〃 will come in deafening chorus the reply； 〃there is the unquestionable right of the majority； which gives unquestionable rights to the parliament it elects。〃 Yes； now we are coming down to the root of the matter。 The divine right of parliaments means the divine right of majorities。 The fundamental assumption made by legislators and people alike； is that a majority has powers to which no limits can be put。 This is the current theory which all accept without proof as a self…evident truth。 Nevertheless； criticism will； I think； show that this current theory requires a radical modification。 In an essay on 〃Railway Morals and Railway Policy；〃 published in the Edinburgh Review for October； 1854； I had occasion to deal with the question of a majority's powers as exemplified in the conduct of public companies； and I cannot better prepare the way for conclusions presently to be drawn； than by quoting a passage from it：
〃Under whatever circumstances； or for whatever ends； a number of men co…operate； it is held that if difference of opinion arises among them； justice requires that the will of the seater number shall be executed rather than that of the smaller number； and this rule is supposed to be uniformly applicable； be the question at issue what it may。 So confirmed is this conviction and so little have the ethics of the matter been considered； that to most this mere suggestion of a doubt will cause some astonishment。 Yet it needs but a brief analysis to show that the opinion is little better than a political superstition。 Instances may readily be selected which prove； by reductio ad absurdum； that the right of a majority is a purely conditional right； valid only within specific limits。 Let us take a few。 Suppose that at the general meeting of some philanthropic association； it was resolved that in addition to relieving distress the association should employ home…missionaries to preach down popery。 Might the subscriptions of Catholics； who had joined the body with charitable views； be rightfully used for this end？ Suppose that of the members of a bookclub； the seater number； thinking that under existing circumstances rifle…practice was more important than reading； should decide to change the purpose of their union； and to apply the funds in hand for the purchase of powder； ball； and targets。 Would the rest be bound by this decision？ Suppose that under the excitement of news from Australia； the majority of a Freehold Land Society should determine； not simply to start in a body for the gold…diggings； but to use their accumulated capital to provide outfits。 Would this appropriation of property be just to the minority？ and must these join the expedition？ Scarcely anyone would venture an affirmative answer even to the first of these questions； much less to the others。 And why？ Because everyone must perceive that by uniting himself with others； no man can equitably be betrayed into acts utterly foreign to the purpose for which he joined them。 Each of these supposed minorities would properly reply to those seeking to coerce them： 'We combined with you for a defined object； we gave money and time for the furtherance of that object； on all questions thence arising we tacitly agreed to conform to the will of the greater number； but we did not agree to conform on any other questions。 If you induce us to join you by professing a certain end； and then undertake some other end of which we were not apprised； you obtain our support under false pretences； you exceed the expressed or understood compact to which we committed ourselves； and we are no longer bound by your decisions。' Clearly this is the only rational interpretation of the matter。 The general principle underlying the right government of every incorporated body； is； that its members contact with each other severally to submit to the will of the majority in all matters concerning the fulfilment of the objects for which they are incorporated； but in no others。 To this extent only can the contact hold。 For as it is implied in the very nature of a contact； that those entering into it must know what they contact to do； and as those who unite with others for a specified object； cannot contemplate all the unspecified objects which it is hypothetically possible for the union to undertake； it follows that the contact entered into cannot extend to such unspecified ob