HistoricalMethodI。JohnAustinIhavespokenmorethanonceoftheparadoximpliedintheUtilitariancombinationofappealsto’experience，’withindifferencetohistory。TheimportanceofhistoricalmethodsalreadyrecognisedbyMillhasbecomemoreobviousinlateryears。Itwas，ashesaw，clearlydesirablethattheUtilitariansshouldannexthisfieldofInquiryandapplyappropriatemethods。
IhavesaidsomethingofMill’sviewoftheproblemsthussuggested；buttheattitudeoftheUtilitariansinregardtothemmaybemorefullyindicatedbythewritingsofsomeofhisallies。
JohnAustin1790-18591*wasacceptedastheheir-apparenttoBenthaminthespecialdepartmentofjurisprudence。Fiveyears’serviceinthearmywasauniqueapprenticeshipforaBenthamite；and，ashiswidowtellsus，helpedtodevelophischivalroussenseofhonour。Itmayalsohelptoexplainawantofsympathyforthedemocraticzealofmostofhiscomrades。Inanycase，itdidnotsuppressadelightinintellectualactivity。
Austinleftthearmy，andin1818wascalledtothebar，butill-healthcompelledhimtoretirein1825。Hewasthusqualifiedtobeajuristbysomeknowledgeofpractice，andforcedtoturnhisknowledgetotheoreticalapplication。UponthefoundationoftheLondonUniversityhebecamethefirstprofessorofjurisprudence。Withthetruescholar’sinstinctforthoroughpreparation，hewenttoBonn，studiedthegreatGermanwritersuponjurisprudence，andmadetheacquaintanceofeminentlivingprofessors。TheinsularnarrownessofBenthamandJamesMillwasthustobecorrectedbycosmopolitanculture。Austinreturnedamidstthehighestexpectations。Aclearvoice，aperfectdelivery，andacourteousanddignifiedmannerweresuitedtogiveeffecttohisteaching；andunanimoustraditiontellsusthathispowersinconversationwereunsurpassed。WhydidhenotacquiresuchanintellectualleadershipinLondonasDugaldStewarthadenjoyedinEdinburgh？Somereasonsareobvious。
Englishbarristersandlawstudentswereserenelyindifferenttothe’philosophyoflaw。’TheyhadquiteenoughtodoinacquiringfamiliaritywiththetechnicalitiesofEnglishpractice。TheUniversityitselfturnedouttobechieflyahighschoolforboysnotyetripeforlegalstudies。ThoughJ。S。Millattendedhislecturesandtookelaboratenotes，fewmenhadMill’sthirstforknowledge。Moreover，AustinthoughtitadutytobeasdryasBentham，anddischargedthatdutyscrupulously。Theaudiencesdwindled，andthesalary，derivedfromthefees，dwindledwithit。Austin，apoorman，couldnotgoondiscoursinggratuitouslytoemptybenches，andgavehislastlecturein1832。
Admiringfriendsdidtheirbesttofindasphereforhistalents。BroughamplacedhimontheCriminalLawCommission，wherehesoonfoundthattherewasnoseriouschanceofbeingemployed，ashedesired，inactivecodificationAcourseoflecturespromotedbythesoundUtilitarian，HenryBickerstethLordLangdale，attheInnerTemplefellasflatastheformer。
AustinretiredtoFrance，sayingthathewasbornoutoftimeandplace，andshouldhavebeena’schoolmanofthetwelfthcenturyoraGermanprofessor。’HewasafterwardsonaCommissionatMalta，withhisfriendSirG。CornewallLewisforacolleague。A
changeofgovernmentbroughtthisemploymenttoanend。Austingaveupactivework。HepassedsomeyearsinGermanyandFranceintheenjoymentofintellectualsociety。Aftertherevolutionof1848hereturnedtoEngland，andledaquietcountrylifeatWeybridge。Hissolelaterpublicationwasapamphletagainstparliamentaryreformin1859。HediedinthefollowingDecember。
Weakhealthandafastidioustemperamentpartlyaccountforhissilence。Afterpublishinghisearlylectureshecouldneverbeinducedtobringoutasecondedition。Hesufferedfromscholar’sparalysis——preferenceofdoingnothingtodoinganythingshortoftheidealstandard。HehadnotstrengthtosatisfythedemandsofGermanprofessors，andcarednothingfortheapplauseoftheBritishpublic。His’estimateofmenwaslow，’saysMrsAustin，’andhissolicitudefortheirapprobationwasconsequentlysmall。’Hiswantofsuccessdidnotembitter，thoughitdiscouragedhim；andhewasconstantly，wearetold，’meditatingonthesublimestthemesthatcanoccupythemindofman。’Hekepttheresultsforhisowncircleofhearers。Utilitarianzealfordemocracywasimpossibleforhim。Hehadthescholar’scontemptforthevulgar，anddreadedpoliticalchangeswhichcouldincreasethepowerofthemasses。ItisthemoreremarkablethatAustin’sUtilitarianismisofthemostrigidorthodoxy。A
thoroughBenthamitetraininggaveabsoluteimmunitytoeventhegermsoftranscendentalphilosophy。HespeakswiththeprofoundestrespectofthegreatGermanprofessors，especiallyofSavigny。Hecordiallyadmirestheirlearningandacuteness。Butwhentheydeviateintophilosophyhedenouncestheir’jargon’asroundlyasBenthamorJamesMill。AustinbecamethetypicalexpounderofBenthamitejurisprudence。Hislectureslongenjoyedahighreputation：partly，Icannothelpguessing，because，goodorbad，theyhadthefieldtothemselves；partly，also，becausetheirdry，logicalarticulationfitsthemadmirablyforexaminationpurposes；andpartly，Idonotdoubt，becausetheyrepresentsomerarequalitiesofmind。Theirfamedeclinedupontheriseofthe’historicalschool。’Austin’sstarsetasMaine’srose。YetAustinhimselfclaimedthathiswasthereallyhistoricalmethod。Thehistoricalschool，hesays，2*istheschoolwhichappealsto’experience，’andholdsthata’bodyoflawcannotbespunoutofafewgeneralprinciples，consideredapriori。’Benthamclearlyfallsunderthedefinition，forBenthamconsideredthereportsofEnglishdecisionstobe’aninvaluablemineofexperienceforthelegislator。’Ifthisbeanadequatecriterion，howdoesBenthamdifferfromtheschoolwhichclaimedthehistoricalmethodasitsdistinctivecharacteristic？Austinaimsatgivinga’philosophyoflaw。’Thephraseatonceindicatestwocorrelativelinesofinquiry。A’law’supposesalaw-giver——anauthoritywhichlaysdownorenforcesthelaw。Wemaytheninquirewhatisimpliedbytheexistenceofthisauthority，orwhatisitsorigin，growth，andconstitution？Thatisaproblemof’socialdynamics。’Wemay，again，taketheexistenceofthestateforgranted；inquirewhataretheactuallaws；howtheycanbeclassifiedandsimplified；andwhataretheconsequentrelationsbetweenthestateandtheindividual。Thatisaproblemof’socialstatics，’andcorrespondstotheordinarylegalpointofview。Theconceptionof’law’iscommontoboth，thoughitmaybeapproachedfromoppositedirections，andmayrequiremodificationsoastobringtheresultsofthetwolinesofinquiryintoharmony。Theproblems，andthereforethemethodsofinquiry，mustbedistinct，buteachmaybeelucidatedbytheother。
Austin’spositionisgivenbyhisdefinitionoflaw。Itimplieswhathasbeencalledthe’Austiniananalysis，’andisconsideredbyhisfollowerstodissolveallmannerofsophistries。ItisalreadyimpliedinHobbes。3*Alaw，briefly，isthecommandofasovereignenforcedbyasanction。Thedefinitiongivestheobviousmeaningforthelawyer。Murderispunishablebydeath。ThatisthelawofEngland。Toprovethatisthelaw，weneedonlygotothestatute-book。Thestatuterestsupontheabsoluteauthorityofthelegislature。Itassumestheexistence，then，ofasovereign；anultimateauthoritybehindwhichthelawyernevergoes。Itisforhiminfallible。TheEnglishlawyeracceptsanactofparliamentasamanofscienceacceptsalawofnature。Iftherebeanylawwhichhasnotthesemarksitisforhimnolaw。Conductisillegalwhenthestatemachinerycanbeputinforcetosuppressit。Thereforethesphereoflawispreciselymarkedoutbytheconceptionofthesovereignandthesanction。
Thedefinition，then，maybetrueandrelevantforallthelawyer’spurposes。Butadefinition，asJ。S。Millwouldpointout，isnotasufficientfoundationforaphilosophy。Itmayprovisionallymarkoutsomeprovinceforinvestigation；butwemustalwaysbepreparedtoaskhowfarthedefinitioncorrespondstoanimportantdifference。NowAustin’sdefinitionhasimportantimplications。Itexcludesaswellasincludes。Havingdefinedalaw，hearguesthatmanyotherthingswhichpassbythatnameareonly’metaphorically’or’analogically’laws；andthisraisesthequestion，whetherthefactthattheydonotconformtohisdefinitioncorrespondstoavitaldifferenceintheirrealnature？Ishesimplysaying，’Idonotcallthemlaws，’orreallypointingoutanessentialandrelevantdifferenceof’kind’？Animportantpointissuggestedbyoneexclusion。Wearenottoconfoundtheso-calledlawsproperwiththe’lawsofnature’ofscientificphraseology。Suchalawofnatureissimplyastatementofageneralfact。Theastronomerassertsthatthemotionofbodiesmaybedescribedbyacertainformula。Insayingso，hedoesnotassert，evenifhebelievestheinferencetobelegitimate，thattheirmotioniscausedbyadivinecommandorenforcedbyasanction。Theactualuniformityisallthatconcernshim。Theuniformityproducedbylawproperled，asAustinholds，toaconfusionbetweendifferentconceptions。
Austinwasclearlyrightinpointingoutthedifference；andscientificthinkers，beforeandsincehistime，havehadtostrugglewithafallacy，singularlytenaciousoflife。A’lawofnature’inthescientificsenseisnotalawinthejurist’ssense。ThedifferencemayberegardedinanotherwayThetwosensesoflawdifferasa’command’differsfromaproposition；
theimperativefromtheindicativemood。Thecommand，’Donotmurder，’isnotasimpleproposition。Itbelongsrathertoactionthantobelief。Ituttersavolitionandthereforecreatesafact，insteadofsimplyexpressingatruth。Yetacommandisalsoafact，andmayberegardedaspartofthegeneralsystemoffact。Thecommand，’Donotmurder，’impliesthefact，’murderisforbidden。’Wemightshowthatincertainsocialconditionsmurderbecomespunishablebydeath。Thatisapropertyofsocietyatcertainstages。Ifthesocialmachineryworkedwithperfectaccuracy，itwouldbeasmuchalawofnaturethatasocietykillsmurderersasthatawolfkillslambsorthatfireburnsstraw。Fromthispointofview，then，a’lawproper’fallsundertheconceptionofa’lawofnature，’thoughalawofnatureisnota’lawproper。’Itisalawofnatureinthemaking，oralawofnaturewhichisonlyfulfilledwhenanumberofcomplexconditionsofhumanconductaresatisfied。Austin，denyingthatfree-willmeansareallyarbitraryelement，wouldnodoubthaveadmittedthatthe’lawproper’wasaproductofthegenerallawsinthescientificsenseofhumannature。Thisaspectofthecase，however，passesoutofsight。Thelawissomethingcreated；
’set，’ashecallsit，orlaiddownbythesovereignathisownwill，andisthusperfectlyarbitrary。Thatistheultimatefact，andmakesaradicaldifference。Westopatthe’command，’anddonotaskhowthecommanditselfcomesintoexistence。ThiscorrespondstoJ。S。Mill’sdistinctionbetween’making’and’growing。’Lawbelongstotheregionof’making。’Itoriginatesinthewillofthesovereign。Whateverhewillsand’sanctions，’
andnothingelse，isthereforelawinthepropersenseoftheterm。
Anotherclassof’laws’isexcludedbythedefinition。A
’custom’isnotalawproper。Iobeymanyrules，whicharenot’commands’andnotenforcedbylegalsanctions。Iconformtocountlessrulesofconduct，thoughnoassignablepersonhasevermadethem，andthoughthesovereignwillnotpunishmeforbreakingthem。Insuchrulesthedisapprovalofsocietymayactinthesamewayasasanction，thoughnotannexedbyasovereign。
Theresemblancemaypassintoidentity。Customsbecomelaws，astheyreceivethesanctionofthelegislatororofthecourts。
ThisincludesBentham’s’judge-made’law；andAustindivergesfromBenthambyrecognisingthisasalegitimatemodeoflegislation。Thequestionthenariseswhetherthedistinctionbetweenlawsandcustomsisessentialorsuperficial——arealdistinctionofkindsoronlyimportantinourclassification。