Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/375

 LAW 357 customary laws that is to say, laws which are set or imposed by the general opinion of the community, but are not enforced by legal or political sanctions.&quot; Such, he says, are the savage societies of hunters and fishers in North America, and such were the Germans as described by Tacitus. He takes no account of societies in an intermediate stage between this and the condition which constitutes political society. We need not follow the analysis in detail. Much ingenuity is displayed in grouping the various kinds of government, in detecting the sovereign authority under the disguises which it wears in the complicated State system of the United States or under the fictions of English law, in elucidating the precise meaning of abstract political terms. Incidentally the source of many celebrated fallacies in political thought is laid bare. That the question who is sovereign in a given state is a question of fact and not of law or morals or religion, that the sovereign is incapable of legal limitation, that law is such by the sovereign s command, that no real or assumed compact can limit his action are positions which Austin has been accused of enforcing with needless iteration. He has cleared them, however, from the air of paradox with which they had been previously encumbered, and his influence was in no direction more widely felt than in making them the commonplaces of educated opinion in this generation. Passing from these, we may now consider what has been said against the theory, which may be summed up in the following terms. Laws, no matter in what form they be expressed, are in the last resort reducible to commands set by the person or body of persons who are in fact sovereigns in any independent political society. The sovereign is the person or persons whose commands are habitually obeyed by the great bulk of the community; and by an independent society we mean that such sovereign head is not himself habitually obedient to any other determinate body of persons. The society must be sufficiently numerous to be considerable before we can speak of it as a political society. From command, with its inseparable incident of sanction, come the duties and rights in terms of which laws are for the most part expressed. Duty means that the person of whom it is predicated is liable to the sanction in case he fails to obey the command. Right means that the person of whom it is predicated may set the sanction in opsration in case the command be disobeyed. Before noticing the considerable body of hostile criticism with which in the main we are unable to agree, we may here inter polate a doubt whether the condition of independence on the part of the head of a community is essential to the legal analysis. It seems to us that we have all the elements of a true law present when we point to a community habitually obedient to the authority of a person or determinate body of persons, no matter what the relations of that superior may be to any external or superior power. Provided that in fact the commands of the lawgiver are those be yond which the community never looks, it seems immaterial to inquire whether this lawgiver in turn takes his orders from some body else or is habitually obedient to such orders when given. One may imagine a community governed by a dependent legislatorial body or person, while the supreme sovereign whose representative and nominee such body or person may be never directly addresses the community at all. We do not see that in such a case anything is gained in clearness by representing the law of the community as set by the suzerain, rather than the dependent legislator. Nor is the ascertainment of the ultimate seat of power necessary to define political societies. That we get when we suppose a community to be in the habit of obedience to a single person or to a determinate combination of persons. The use of the word &quot;command&quot; is not unlikely to lead to a misconception of Austin s meaning. When we say that a law is a command of the sovereign, we are apt to think of the sovereign as enunciating the rule in question for the first time. Many laws are not traceable to the sovereign at all in this sense. Some are based upon immemorial practices, some can be traced to the influence of private citizens, whether practising lawyers or writers on law, and in most countries a vast body of law owes its existence as such to the fact that it has been observed as law in some other society. The great bulk of modern law owes its existence and its shape ultimately to the labours of the Roman lawyers of the empire. Austin s definition has nothing to do with this, the historical origin of laws. Most books dealing with law in the abstract generalize the modes in which laws may be originated under the name of the &quot; sources &quot; of law, and one of these is legislation, or the direct command of the sovereign body. The connexion of laws with each other as principles is properly the subject matter of historical jurispru dence, the ideal perfection of which would be the establishment of the general lays governing the evolution of law in the technical sense. Austin s definition looks, not to the authorship of the law as a principle, not to its inventor or originator, but to the person or persons who in the last resort cause it to be obeyed. If a given rule is enforced by the sovereign it is a law. It may be convenient to notice here what is usually said about the sources of law, as the expression sometimes proves a stumbling- block to the appreciation of Austin s system. In the corpus juris of any given country only a portion of the laws is traceable to the direct expression of his commands by the sovereign. Legislation is one, but only one, of the sources of law. Other portions of the law may be traceable to other sources, which may vary in effect in different systems. The list given in the Institutes of Justinian of the ways in which law may be made lex, plcbiscitum, princijns placita, cdida mayistratuum, and so on is a list of sources. Among the sources of law other than legislation which are most commonly exemplified are the laws made by judges in the course of judicial decisions, and law originating as custom. The source of the law in the one case is the judicial decision, in the other the custom. In consequence of the decisions and in consequence of the custom the rule has prevailed. English law is largely made up of principles derived in each of those ways, while it is deficient in principles derived from the writings of independent teachers, such as have in other systemc exercised a powerful influence on the development of law. The rcsponsa prudentum, the opinions of learned men, published as such, did undoubtedly originate an immense portion of Roman law. N~o such influence has affected English law to any appreciable extent a result owing to the activity of the courts of the legislature. This difference has profoundly affected the form of English law as compared with that of systems which have been developed by the play of free discussion. These are the most definite of the influences to which the beginning of laws may be traced. The law once established, no matter how, is nevertheless law in the sense of Austin s definition. It is enforced by the sovereign authority. It was originated by something very different. But when we speak of it as a command we think only of the way in which it is to-day presented to the subject. The newest order of an Act of Parliament is not more positively presented to the people as a command to be obeyed than are the elementary rules of the common law for which no legislative origin can be traced. It is not even necessary to resort to the figure of speech by which alone, according to Sir Henry Maine (Early History of Institutions, p. 314), the common law can be regarded as the commands of the Government. &quot;The common law, &quot; he says, &quot; consists of their commands because they can repeal or alter or restate it at pleasure.&quot; &quot; They command because, being by the assumption possessed of uncontrollable force, they could innovate without limit at any moment.&quot; On the contrary, it may be said that they command because they do as a matter of fact enforce the rules laid down in the common law. It is not because they could innovate if they pleased in the common law that they are said to command it, but because it is known that they will enforce it as it stands. The criticism of Austin s analysis resolved itself into two different sets of objections. One relates to the theory of sovereignty which underlies it ; the other to its alleged failure to include rules which in common parlance are laws, and which it is felt ought to be included in any satisfactory definition of law. As the latter is to some extent anticipated and admitted by Austin himself, we may deal with it first. A recent writer 1 has been at great pains to collect a number of laws or rules of law which do not square with the Austinian definition of law 7 as a command creating rights and duties. Take the rule that &quot; every will must be in writing.&quot; It is a very circuitous way of looking at things, according to Mr Harrison, to say that such a rule creates a specific right in any determinate person of a definite description. So, again, the rule that &quot;a legacy to the witness of a will is void.&quot; Such a rule is not &quot; designed to give any one any rights, but simply to protect the public against wills made under undue influence.&quot; Again, the Mr Frederic Harrison in the Fortnightly Review (vols. xxx., xxxi. ).