Blackstone, Sir William

born July 10, 1723, London, Eng.

died Feb. 14, 1780, Wallingford, Oxfordshire

British jurist.

Orphaned at age 12, he was educated at public school and later at Pembroke College, Oxford, at the expense of his uncle, a London surgeon. He was elected a fellow of All Souls College in 1744, and in 1746 he became a barrister. Having taken a doctorate in civil law in 1750, he abandoned his legal practice in 1753 to concentrate on teaching and legal work around Oxford. He gave the first university lectures on English common law, publishing a synopsis for students in 1756. He was elected to the first chair in common law, the Vinerian professorship at Oxford, in 1758. His classic Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–69) is the best-known description of the doctrines of English law; it became the basis of university legal education in England and North America. He also served as a member of Parliament (1761–70), as solicitor general to the queen (from 1763), and as judge of the Court of Common Pleas (1770–80).

* * *

▪ English jurist

Introduction

born July 10, 1723, London, England

died February 14, 1780, Wallingford, Oxfordshire

 English jurist, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vol. (1765–69), is the best-known description of the doctrines of English law (legal profession). The work became the basis of university legal education in England and North America. He was knighted in 1770.

Early life

      Blackstone was the fourth and posthumous son of Charles Blackstone, a silk merchant of moderate means. His mother died when Blackstone was 12. He was educated by his uncle Thomas Bigg, a London surgeon, first at the Charterhouse (1730–38) and then at Pembroke College, Oxford (Oxford, University of), where he read not only the classics but also logic and mathematics. Everything that he wrote shows a wide knowledge of literature and an allusive and elegant literary style.

      In 1741 he became a student at the Middle Temple, one of the Inns of Court. In 1743 he was elected a member of All Souls College, Oxford; a year later he became a fellow, and by 1746 he had become a barrister. Although his practice was not very successful, in college affairs he at once proved himself an active and efficient man of business, zealous for order and improvement.

      In 1750 Blackstone took the degree of Doctor of Civil Law. In July 1753 he decided to retire from his practice and concentrate on teaching academic law and doing legal work in and around Oxford. He had been recorder of Wallingford since 1749 and assessor (judge) of the Chancellor's Court since 1751.

      Blackstone had developed a great interest in common law, and in 1753 he began to lecture on that subject. These were the first lectures on English law ever delivered in a university. His listeners were captivated by the lucidity and charm of his style and by the simplicity with which he presented the subject. The latter virtue, however, was attained in part because Blackstone blurred the difficulties and contradictions of English law. He gave the whole subject an air of completeness and mutual interdependence as if it were a uniform logical system, and he suppressed or ignored its archaic aspects and instead acclaimed English law as the embodiment of 18th-century wisdom. He stated his aims in a notice of his lectures dated June 23, 1753:

It is proposed to lay down a general and comprehensive Plan of the Laws of England; to deduce their History; to enforce and illustrate their leading Rules and fundamental Principles; and to compare them with the Laws of Nature and of other Nations.

      In 1754 Blackstone published Analysis of the Laws of England, a synopsis of his lectures for the guidance of his pupils. In October 1758 he was elected the first holder of a chair (the Vinerian professorship) of common law. His lectures formed the basis of his Commentaries, which were published in four successive volumes between 1765 and 1769.

Public life

      For several years Blackstone combined academic life in Oxford with an increasingly active public life in London. In 1759 he resigned the office of assessor of the Chancellor's Court and in 1761 became a bencher (lecturer and supervisor) of the Middle Temple. In March 1761 he was elected member of Parliament for Hindon, in Wiltshire, though he had no great enthusiasm for the post. In May 1761 he married Sarah Clitherow, daughter of James Clitherow of Boston House, Brentford, and bought Priory Place, Wallingford. In July 1761 he was appointed principal of New Inn Hall, and in 1763 he became solicitor general to the queen. Blackstone decided to leave academic life after his proposal to convert New Inn Hall into a specialized college of common law was rejected. In 1766 he resigned both his chair and his headship of the hall.

      Blackstone sat in the House of Commons (Commons, House of) for nine years as a member of Parliament for Hindon (1761–68) and Westbury (1768–70). He was not a zealous politician, describing himself as “amid the Rage of contending Parties, a Man of Moderation.” He spoke mainly on legal and constitutional questions, the most conspicuous of which was the Middlesex election of 1769, when he supported the expulsion of the political reformer John Wilkes (Wilkes, John) from the House of Commons. His opinion on this controversy was attacked as being inconsistent with the legal principles he enunciated in his Commentaries.

      In 1770 Blackstone refused the office of solicitor general but accepted that of judge of the Court of Common Pleas (Common Pleas, Court of). In the 10 years of his judgeship he administered the law satisfactorily but attained no special distinction. Toward the end of the 1770s his health failed; he died in February 1780 and was buried, by his wish, in St. Peter's Church.

Assessment

      Blackstone was a good judge but a better commentator. The Commentaries is a systematic, clear, and elegant description of the state of English law in the middle of the 18th century. It had an immediate and outstanding success. In England and America the Commentaries became the basis of university legal education.

      Blackstone was by no means a scientific jurist. He had only the vaguest grasp of the elementary conceptions of law. He evidently regarded the law of England as the rules of action or conduct imposed by a superior power on its subjects. He propounded the doctrine that municipal laws derive their validity from their conformity to the so-called law of nature, or law of God. “No human laws,” he said, “are of any validity if contrary to this.” His fundamental distinction between the rights of persons and the rights of things, implying as it did that things as well as persons have rights, is attributable to a misunderstanding of the technical terms of Roman law. In distinguishing between private and public wrongs (civil injuries and crimes) he failed to understand the true principle of the division. By his tendency to substitute loose literary phrases for precise and closely defined terms, he occasionally fell into irreconcilable contradictions. Even in discussing a subject of such immense importance as equity, he hardly discriminated between the legal and popular senses of the word, and from the small place that equity jurisprudence occupies in his arrangement, he would scarcely seem to have realized its true position in the law of England. Despite these flaws, however, the completeness of the treatise, its serviceable if not scientific order, and its powerful and lucid exposition demand recognition. Blackstone's defects as a jurist are more conspicuous in his treatment of the underlying principles and fundamental divisions of the law than in his account of its substantive principles.

      Blackstone did not confine himself to the work of a legal commentator. It was his business, especially when he touched on the framework of society, to find a basis in history and reason for all the most characteristic English institutions. There is not much either of philosophy or fairness in this part of his work, and Blackstone generally shows himself to be a specious defender of the existing political and social order.

      Contemporary criticism of the Commentaries was directed not against the book as a whole but against particular points. Blackstone's view that dissent, in law, was a crime was particularly criticized. The most damaging criticism came near the end of Blackstone's life and had its greatest effect after his death. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (Bentham, Jeremy) attacked him as an “enemy of reformation”—a charge that is not surprising considering that Bentham was a radical legal reformer and Blackstone a historical expositor of the law. But Blackstone was not necessarily a defender either of the status quo or of vested interests. He certainly believed that the constitution was “wisely contrived,” but he was aware that it had faults. Indeed, some passages in the Commentaries could well have been quoted in favour of parliamentary reform; for example, he stated that there might be “a more complete representation of the people,” a remark that expressed disapproval of rotten boroughs (rotten borough).

      But it would be absurd to expect the Commentaries to be primarily a plea for reform. Its purpose, like that of the lectures it is based on, is to explain and describe. Blackstone's description of the law as it existed was accurate and comprehensive and was of great use to those who wished to reform it. His description of the constitution was much more in keeping with the facts than some of his critics allowed, and his statement of the sovereignty of Parliament and his recognition of the implications of sovereignty were significant achievements.

      Having said this, it is still undeniable that the Commentaries' merit as a work of literature easily outweighs its value as a treatise on government. It is written in an allusive and elegant style, and its language is simple and clear. Whether because of its literary qualities or its flattery of public prejudices, the influence of the book in England was extraordinary. It was accepted as an authoritative revelation of the law, and it performed for the educated classes in England much the same service as was rendered to the people of Rome by the publication of their previously unknown laws. To this day Blackstone's criticism of the English constitution probably expresses the most profound political convictions of the majority of the English people.

      The fame of Blackstone in the 19th century was greater in the United States than in Blackstone's native land. After the American Revolutionary War (American Revolution) the Commentaries was the chief source of the knowledge of English law in the American republic. A work that was a textbook in the old country became in the new one an oracle of law. The results of this transposition were not always good, but, fortunately, living law in America was being shaped through local institutions, and the country's legislators and judges were practical men in spite of the Commentaries. By the late 19th century American legal scholars had begun to escape from Blackstone's influence, and by the mid-20th century few Americans had read Blackstone even as a classic. Nevertheless, Blackstone is a symbol that American lawyers remember.

Additional Reading

James Clitherow, preface to Reports of Cases Determined in the Several Courts of Westminster-Hall from 1746 to 1779, Taken and Compiled by Sir W. Blackstone, 2 vol. (1781), is the basic account of Blackstone's life, written by his brother-in-law. William S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol. 12 (1938), is a full account of Blackstone's career and an assessment of the Commentaries; Harold G. Hanbury, The Vinerian Chair and Legal Education (1958), contains chapters on Blackstone, the Commentaries, and minor works; W.R. Ward, Georgian Oxford: University Politics in the Eighteenth Century (1958), gives an account of Blackstone's part in Oxford politics. References to Blackstone's constitutional ideas are contained in B. Kemp, King and Commons, 1660–1832 (1957); and Wayne Morrison (ed.), Commentaries on the Works of Sir William Blackstone, 4 vol. (1999).

* * *