Dicey

---

To access the full article, please click here

Albert Venn Dicey served as the Vinerian Chair Professor of English Law at Oxford for twenty‐seven years and reached a level of legal prominence such that many still characterize the British constitution as ‘Diceyan’. Dicey was born at Claybrook Hall in Leicestershire to a Whig, Evangelical, middle‐class, intellectual family that made its fortune printing and editing the Northampton Mercury, a regional newspaper. His early education was conducted at home by his mother. At seventeen, he attended King's College in London and two years later matriculated at Balliol College Oxford, graduating in 1858 with first class honours. Dicey earned a fellowship at Trinity College, Oxford in 1860 and held it until he married Elinor Mary Bonham‐Carter in 1872, a union that lasted half a century but bore no children. Dicey served as junior counsel to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from 1876 until 1890.

In the face of competition from recognized scholars like William Anson and Frederick Pollock, Dicey won the Vinerian Chair in 1882 based largely on his already published works: A Treatise on the Rules for the Selection of the Parties to an Action (1870) and The Law of Domicil as a Branch of the Law of England, Stated in the Form of Rules (1879). During his tenure, Dicey successfully revived the prestige of the Vinerian Chair, which had been inaugurated by Sir William Blackstone, with his three major scholarly contributions: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885); A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws (1896); and Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century (1905).

In Law of the Constitution, Dicey enumerated three principles of British constitutional law: parliamentary sovereignty; the rule of law; and conventions of the constitution. In a country lacking a formal constitution, Dicey articulated the main characteristics affecting the development of the non‐formal constitution, and he did so in a signature style that was accessible to scholars as well as the general public. These principles have become so strongly identified with Dicey that later scholarship assesses whether and to what extent the British constitution ever was or still is ‘Diceyan’. Since the British constitution has served as a model for other countries to either follow or reject, Dicey's work has been widely cited worldwide and is still discussed.

While his constitutional work was ‘born under a lucky star’, Dicey found the work on Conflict of Laws tedious, spending fourteen years writing it. But it was time well spent, as Dicey succeeded in influencing the very development of the then emerging field of private international law. Many consider the book his magnum opus. In Law and Public Opinion, which originated in lectures he gave at Harvard Law School in 1898, Dicey tried to trace the history of ideas, dividing the nineteenth century to three main periods: Old Toryism (1800–1830); Benthamism (1825–1870); and Collectivism (1865–1900). The book has been the most severely criticized of his enduring contributions, though it is still studied in connection with the rise of the welfare state and the ‘revolution in government’ controversy.

Originally, Dicey's political creed included liberalism, support of free trade, and enfranchisement for women. He was willing, however, to sacrifice all these beliefs to preserve the Union between England and Ireland. Once Home Rule became a real threat in 1885–1886, Dicey joined the Unionist ranks. When the Unionists were torn between free trade and protectionism, Dicey advocated compromise or even acceptance of protectionism for the sake of the Union. Women's enfranchisement could no longer be risked mainly because it might stoke Irish nationalism. Scholars have even suggested that Dicey contradicted his constitutional dogma in his fervour for unionism.

From 1886 until near his death, Dicey wrote prolifically against Home Rule, trying to influence politicians and public opinion in support of the Union. He did not treat the Irish as a separate nation. He believed Irish despair was economic in nature, and regardless, Home Rule was worse than complete separation, since it compromised parliamentary sovereignty. Dicey would not accept the constitutionality of any statute establishing Home Rule until it had been first submitted for the verdict of the people at election or referendum. He was one of the ardent advocates of the referendum, viewing it as ‘honestly democratic in theory and conservative in practice’. Although parliamentary sovereignty is identified as Diceyan, Dicey himself may be viewed as supporting popular sovereignty although the relevant populace for him was that of the United Kingdom, not Ireland alone.

Suggested citation:

"Dicey" in The New Oxford Companion to Law (Peter Cane & Joanne Conaghan eds., September 2008).