Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution

by Albert Venn Dicey

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface.We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Law, British Literature, Nonfiction, Politics, Legal, 19th Century

734 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1885

About the author

Albert Venn Dicey was a jurist and constitutional theorist.

Reviews

[Dominic Foo]

Although it was written in the late 19th century, there is still no better book to go to to learn about the distinctive features of the English legal system. Dicey was responsible for formulating for the first time the concept of "rule of law" and the idea of "parliamentary sovereignty" which understanding of the legal supremacy of parliament still holds today.

[Frank Stein]

This is probably the first comparative study of constitutional law out there, from back in 1885, and it remains a classic. Through a focus on the English experience, Dicey explains why Parliamentary Sovereignty and the "rule of law," a term he coined, defined the English (he often used the word even for the British or UK) constitutional experience. He showed the Parliament was indeed the true legal "sovereign" of the nation, showing through things like the Septennial Act of 1716 (which extended the length of Parliament) and the Act of Union of 1800, where Parliament basically absolved itself and created a new version that included Ireland, that it could do anything. He also showed that the "Rule of Law" defined English practice because most of the "constitution" was the result of judicial cases decided between individuals, and English practice and law abjured abstract rights for more concrete "remedies." It was the practicality of English legalism that constituted its genius, Dicey shows, and he has much to demonstrate the success of this program over the more "rigid" and "abstract" French constitutionalism (although he is sympathetic to American and Swiss forms of federal constitutions.)

Much of the comparative stuff at the heart of this book is disputable and has often been disputed (especially concerning the perils of French "droit administratif"), and Dicey often wants to contrast the modern English with an 18th century French constitutionalism as opposed to the modern, post-1870 Third Republic one, but many of his general outlines have some credence. Dicey is a crystalline clear writer, so this reads easy, but his fondness for logical exactitude does occasionally lead to tedium and some tough slogs. On the whole, this will remain the starting point for studying the English constitution, and the many constitutions that emerged from it or still contrast with it.

[Reza Khabook]

من ترجمه فارسي اين كتاب به كوشش دكتر سيد ناصر سلطاني، نشر نگاه معاصر رو خوندم
كتاب فارسي چون مقدمه كوتاهى داره ٢٢٠ صفحه ست
حكومت به خوبى نظام حقوقي بريتانيا رو تشريح مي كنه و اگرچه حدودا دو قرن از عمرش مي گذره اما همچنان از منابع اصلي فهم حقوق اساسي بريتانياست كه البته مقايسه هاش با نظام حقوقي فرانسه و بلژيك مسير فهم رو هموارتر كرده.
يكي ديگه از نكات مهم اين كتاب نوع تعريفي است كه از "حكومت قانون" ارائه مي كنه چرا كه به نظردايسي حكومت قانون فراتر از صرف قانون ه و اون رو به نوحي روح قانون مي دونه.
خواندن اين كتاب به همراه "مباني حقوق عمومي" لاگلين بسيار راهگشاست

[Blunt Of Mercia]

This is an excellent book, but I have not yet had time to read it in full.
The first few chapters are pleasant (or unpleasant) reading, as they point out various truths regarding the largely ficticious nature of our constitution, and the unfettered despotism of parliament; which, in many ways, according to this description of parliamentary sovereignty, is a corporate (& thus unnacountable) dictator, rather than a representative government.

An apt remark of Lord Burghley's:
"England cannot be ruined but by a parliament."

[Simon]

Fine. Dry as a bone, though.

[Spencer]

My guy