199 



It is, however, obvious tliat tlie author of this arguQient, whether Prof. 

 Huxley or another, fails to distiaguish between the two senses of the term 

 power, to which we have alluded, namely, that of actual power or miglit 

 and that oi jural power, or right. In the premises of the argument it is 

 used in the former sense, and in the conclusion in the latter — thus pre- 

 senting — instead of a "characteristic thoroughness of logic" — a striking 

 example of that most common and most destructive of all fallacies, an 

 ambiguous middle. 



But independently of this, the argument is obviously a mere rhetorical 

 artifice ; for the term, forces, in its proper sense, denotes merely physical 

 forces, that operate under fixed laws, from which, from given data, the 

 resultant can be mathematically determined. But when we speak of 

 social or moral forces, or of the resultant of such forces, the term is used 

 in a sense purely metaphorical. Hence, the proposition of Prof. Huxley 

 is to be regarded as only figuratively true, and must be translated into 

 plain English before it can be logically serviceable. But thus translated, 

 no definite meaning can be assigned to it. 



The attempt is however made by Mr. Donisthorpe to render the propo- 

 sition more definite by defining the sovereign as consisting of what he 

 calls "the effective majority " or "force majeure." But even with this 

 explanation the doctrine still remains indefinite. 



What is the effective majority, or superior force— /orce majeure — referred 

 to? To this two answers are given, one by the author cited, and the 

 other by a writer to whom we will presently refer ; and accordingly as 

 we take the one, or the other, the doctrine will assume an essentially dif- 

 ferent form. 



(1) According to Mr. Donisthorpe — as will be seen by reference to 

 the passage cited in the note — this/orce majeure or superior force is neces- 

 sarily vested, not in the unorganized State, but in the government, and 

 "the effectite majority " is but another name for the individuals who control 

 the government ; and thus apparently we arrive again at the doctrine of 

 governmental absolutism, or of the unlimited power of the government, as 

 asserted by Hobbes. But this, though supposed by the author to be the 

 case, is not so. For, as we have seen, Hobbes' doctrine is that the 

 "rights," or "just authority," of the government are unlimited ; whereas 

 the present writer unequivocally defines his proposition as asserting only 

 that the actual power or force of the government is unlimited — a propo- 

 sition essentially different, and obviously false. For not only do govern- 

 ments undoubtedly differ in actual power, but the power of the strongest 

 is constantly and successfully resisted or evaded, and a limit thus set to 

 State interference otherwise than "by the simple process of exploding 

 the State." All that can be claimed for Leviathan is that he is bigger and 

 stronger than the individual, and therefore in general able to overcome 

 his resistance ; but clearly omnipotence is not one of his attributes ; nor 

 will any amount of assertion make him stronger than he is. 



(2) The other form of the doctrine oi force majeure proceeds upon pre- 



