R?vmws 4?7 essentially an Essay on Sovereignty; and accordingly he devotes his criticism to a discussion of the three questions (1.) What is the nature of Sovereignty ? (2.) What is the origin of Sovereignty ? (3.) What are the forms of Sovereignty ? On all these points his remarks are weighty and well considered. It is possible that, in his effort to free himself from Bentham's abstract a/rr/or/ method, he has tended in some degree to go to the opposite extreme. Thus when he says that ' the types of political like the types of animal organization are manifold and slide one into another,' he seems to suggest a somewhat exaggerated view of the diversity of political institutions. It is true to say that political institutions are of an organic and not of a merely mechanical nature; but if nations are organisms they are at least, as Professor Marshall puts it, ? ' vertebrate organisms.' They are determined by ideals which are more or less consciously present throughout, and are of a more or less definite character. It is true that political facts ought not to be ' treated by a method of rigorous dichotomy, by holding fast to unqualified Yea or Nay '; and this is a quite just criticism of the methods of Bentham and Austin: but when it is added that ' they can be described only by a series of balanced and mutually qualifying propositions,' we feel tempted to urge that these balanced propositions ought at least to be definite, and need not be innumerable. A similar remark occurs to us as we read Mr. Montagne's closing sentences ' A people endowed with political genius makes good political institutions. But good political institutions will not supply the want of political genius.' True: but neither does political genius drop upon a people from the clouds. It is to a large extent developed and fostered by good institutions. While it is important to insist that a human society is not mechanical, we must yet recognize that it has a mechanical element in it. It is to be regretted that Mr. Montagne has not seen his way to make any use of Bentham's highly characteristic preface to the second edition. One could have wished to see at least Bentham's own account of the object of the Fragment reproduced, together with his description of Blackstone's lectures. 2 If the work had been a strictly philosophical disquisition on Sovereignty such omissions might have been commend- able; but in reading a book that contains so much personal colouring one would like to have as much as possible of the setting. The only other complaint that has to be made is with regard to the absence of an index at the end, which is always a valuable adjunct to such a work. The Table of Contents, however, is remarkably full and clear. J. S. MACKENZIE. ? P?inc?l?tes of Econore/cs, p. 71. 2 , I, too, heard the lectures; age, sixteen; and even then no small part o! them with rebel ears. The attributes, I remember, in particular, stuck in my stomach. No such audacity, however, as that of publishing my rebellion was at that time in my thoughts.' There are many other interesting passages in this historical preface notably his remarks on Wedderburne's saying that the principle of utility is ' danger- ous,' and his account of the conversation with Lord Shelburne, in which he compared himself to the prophet Balaam. The bright glimpses of Bentham's character which these passages afford ought certainly not to be lost.
