sense, the sovereign of England. Properly considered, these and other similar events have proved that the actual condition of human society is not one of society in Hobbes's sense, but of what, if he had used words with perfect consistency and impartiality, he would have called anarchy, without, however, allowing the word to connote any censure. This conception is as possible as the other. It means no more than that there is amongst men no such thing as a 'great Leviathan,' or 'mortal God,' which can make men in its own image by the exercise of superior force; and that all men, or bodies of men, that appear from time to time to occupy such a position are subject, in fact, to certain unexpressed penalties, which they will do well to bear continually in mind.

IV

SOVEREIGNTY

IN our former notices of Hobbes's works we tried to give an outline of his opinions, both abstract and concrete, but we had not space to discuss at any length his celebrated doctrine of Sovereignty, or to show its relations to more recent political controversies. It is one of the most remarkable doctrines ever propounded, and though it may in these days appear quaint and superannuated in some particulars, it is intimately connected with many of the most important practical controversies of the day.

Hobbes's theory, when translated into the language of our own times, may be thus stated: Human nature is so constituted that, but for the restraints imposed upon it by law, there would be perpetual wars and disputes among men.

But laws can be laws indeed only when they are enforced by superior power, which must be vested in some man or men, for words of themselves have no power.

If more than one man, or one set of men, have the power of making laws in any given society, anarchy will come upon the society, if the different legislators do not agree; in other words, it will be a society no longer.

Therefore, in every true society there must be one supreme governor, whether in the shape of a man, or of an assembly of men. The commands of this sovereign may be equitable or inequitable—that is, they may, or may not, tend to promote the welfare of the governed; but they cannot be unlawful, for they are themselves the laws, and the only laws, of the subject society.

If the sovereign is forcibly and successfully resisted, he ceases to be sovereign, and anarchy ensues, for the essence of sovereignty is supreme force.

Hence, if any body politic be so organised that there are in it different bodies, having or claiming to have legislative power, such bodies politic are in a state of dormant anarchy, which will sooner or later pass through a stage of open anarchy, after which the sovereignty will be revested either in a king or in an assembly. Men cannot serve two masters when those masters disagree.

This body of doctrine, extracted from an immense mass of other matter, part of which was of merely transient interest, is Hobbes's great contribution to systematic politics; and, with certain explanations and additions, it appears to us to be as true and as important as any of the standard doctrines of political

economy, though it is at least equally liable to be misunderstood and misapplied.

We propose, first, to show what it is, and what it is not; secondly, to show historically its truth, its importance, and its interest in our own days; and thirdly, to sketch shortly certain additional considerations which must be borne in mind before it can be made of much practical use.

First, then, as to its truth and nature. It is true, like the propositions of mathematics or political economy, in the abstract only. That is to say, the propositions which it states are propositions which are suggested to the imagination by facts, though no facts completely embody and exemplify them. As there is in nature no such thing as a perfect circle, or a completely rigid body, or a mechanical system in which there is no friction, or a state of society in which men act simply with a view to gain, so there is in nature no such thing as an absolute sovereign in Hobbes's sense of the word. But, as the non-existence of the set of things first mentioned, does not prevent both mathematics and political economy from being sciences of the greatest importance in everyday life, so the fact that sovereignty never is absolute in fact, does not diminish the value of Hobbes's speculations. On the contrary, it will be found very difficult to speak pertinently about politics, or to prove theories as to the true relations of law, morals public and private, rights, the nature and value of freedom, and the like, without continual reference to his principles,

whether in the exact form in which he expressed them or in some other.

If, for instance, any one were asked to explain to some person who was altogether ignorant of the subject what in point of fact a nation is, and what in point of fact is meant by rights, liberties, laws, and so forth, would not some such statement as the following be as good a one as he could give? A nation is a collection of human beings living together under the authority of some person, who regulates their conduct in some particulars by laws-that is, by rules of conduct which forbid or command them to do or leave undone certain things under pain of punishment-and who leaves their conduct in other particulars free from any interference. So far as they are commanded to do this or that, they are said to be governed. So far as they are under no commands, they are said to be free. Thus, in general, they are forbidden to hurt each other, but they are free to do what they please so long as they do not hurt each other. When a law protects a man in doing any particular thing by preventing others from interfering with him, he is said to have a right to do it, and they are said to be under an obligation not to interfere with him. Thus a man has a right, in most countries and in most cases, not to be hurt, and it is his duty not to hurt others.

These laws may be so arranged as to promote the general happiness of those who live under them; in which case they are generally described as good