of responsibility had not yet been attained； as the owner of the thing might very well not have been the person in fault。 But such has not been the view of those most competent to judge。 A consideration of the earliest instances will show； as might have been expected； that vengeance； not compensation； and vengeance on the offending thing； was the original object。 The ox in Exodus was to be stoned。 The axe in the Athenian law was to be banished。 The tree； in Mr。 Tylor's instance； was to be chopped to pieces。 The ＇35＇ slave under all the systems was to be surrendered to the relatives of the slain man； that they might do with him what they liked。 /1/ The deodand was an accursed thing。 The original limitation of liability to surrender； when the owner was before the court； could not be accounted for if it was his liability； and not that of his property； which was in question。 Even where； as in some of the cases； expiation seems to be intended rather than vengeance； the object is equally remote from an extrajudicial distress。
The foregoing history； apart from the purposes for which it has been given； well illustrates the paradox of form and substance in the development of law。 In form its growth is logical。 The official theory is that each new decision follows syllogistically from existing precedents。 But just as the clavicle in the cat only tells of the existence of some earlier creature to which a collar…bone was useful； precedents survive in the law long after the use they once served is at an end and the reason for them has been forgotten。 The result of following them must often be failure and confusion from the merely logical point of view。
On the other hand； in substance the growth of the law is legislative。 And this in a deeper sense than that what the courts declare to have always been the law is in fact new。 It is legislative in its grounds。 The very considerations which judges most rarely mention； and always with an apology； are the secret root from which the law draws all the juices of life。 I mean； of course； considerations of what is expedient for the community concerned。 Every important principle which is developed by litigation is in fact and at bottom the result of more or less definitely understood views of public policy； most generally； to be sure； ＇36＇ under our practice and traditions； the unconscious result of instinctive preferences and inarticulate convictions； but none the less traceable to views of public policy in the last analysis。 And as the law is administered by able and experienced men； who know too much to sacrifice good sense to a syllogism； it will be found that； when ancient rules maintain themselves in the way that has been and will be shown in this book； new reasons more fitted to the time have been found for them； and that they gradually receive a new content； and at last a new form； from the grounds to which they have been transplanted。
But hitherto this process has been largely unconscious。 It is important； on that account； to bring to mind what the actual course of events has been。 If it were only to insist on a more conscious recognition of the legislative function of the courts； as just explained； it would be useful； as we shall see more clearly further on。 /1/
What has been said will explain the failure of all theories which consider the law only from its formal side； whether they attempt to deduce the corpus from a priori postulates； or fall into the humbler error of supposing the science of the law to reside in the elegantia juris； or logical cohesion of part with part。 The truth is； that the law always approaching； and never reaching； consistency。 It is forever adopting new principles from life at one end； and it always retains old ones from history at the other； which have not yet been absorbed or sloughed off。 It will be come entirely consistent only when it ceases to grow。
The study upon which we have been engaged is necessary both for the knowledge and for the revision of the law。 ＇37＇ However much we may codify the law into a series of seemingly self…sufficient propositions； those propositions will be but a phase in a continuous growth。 To understand their scope fully； to know how they will be dealt with by judges trained in the past which the law embodies； we must ourselves know something of that past。 The history of what the law has been is necessary to the knowledge of what the law is。
Again； the process which I have described has involved the attempt to follow precedents； as well as to give a good reason for them。 When we find that in large and important branches of the law the various grounds of policy on which the various rules have been justified are later inventions to account for what are in fact survivals from more primitive times； we have a right to reconsider the popular reasons； and； taking a broader view of the field； to decide anew whether those reasons are satisfactory。 They may be； notwithstanding the manner of their appearance。 If truth were not often suggested by error； if old implements could not be adjusted to new uses； human progress would be slow。 But scrutiny and revision are justified。
But none of the foregoing considerations； nor the purpose of showing the materials for anthropology contained in the history of the law； are the immediate object here。 My aim and purpose have been to show that the various forms of liability known to modern law spring from the common ground of revenge。 In the sphere of contract the fact will hardly be material outside the cases which have been stated in this Lecture。 But in the criminal law and the law of torts it is of the first importance。 It shows that they have started from a moral basis； from the thought that some one was to blame。
＇38＇ It remains to be proved that； while the terminology of morals is still retained； and while the law does still and always； in a certain sense； measure legal liability by moral standards； it nevertheless； by the very necessity of its nature； is continually transmuting those moral standards into external or objective ones； from which the actual guilt of the party concerned is wholly eliminated。
LECTURE II。
THE CRIMINAL LAW。
In the beginning of the first Lecture it was shown that the appeals of the early law were directed only to intentional wrongs。 The appeal was a far older form of procedure than the indictment； and may be said to have had a criminal as well as a civil aspect。 It had the double object of satisfying the private party for his loss； and the king for the breach of his peace。 On its civil side it was rooted in vengeance。 It was a proceeding to recover those compositions； at first optional； afterwards compulsory； by which a wrong…doer bought the spear from his side。 Whether； so far as concerned the king； it had the same object of vengeance； or was more particularly directed to revenue； does not matter； since the claim of the king did not enlarge the scope of the action。
It would seem to be a fair inference that indictable offences were originally limited in the same way as those which gave rise to an appeal。 For whether the indictment arose by a splitting up of the appeal； or in some other way； the two were closely connected。
An acquittal of the appellee on the merits was a bar to an indictment； and； on the other hand； when an appeal was fairly started； although the appellor might fail to prosecute； or might be defeated by plea； the cause might still be proceeded with on behalf of the king。 /1/
＇40＇ The presentment； which is the other parent of our criminal procedure； had an origin distinct from the appeal。 If； as has been thought； it was merely the successor of fresh suit and lynch law； /1/ this also is the child of vengeance； even more clearly than the other。
The desire for vengeance imports an opinion that its object is actually and personally to blame。 It takes an internal standard； not an objective or external one； and condemns its victim by that。 The question is whether such a standard is still accepted either in this primitive form； or in some more refined development； as is commonly supposed； and as seems not impossible； considering the relative slowness with which the criminal law has improved。
It certainly may be argued； with some force； that it has never ceased to be one object of punishment to satisfy the desire for vengeance。 The argument will be made plain by considering those instances in which； for one reason or another； compensation for a wrong is out of the question。
Thus an act may be of such a kind as to make indemnity impossible by putting an end to the principal sufferer； as in the case of murder or manslaughter。
Again； these and other crimes； like forgery； although directed against an individual； tend to make others feel unsafe； and this general insecurity does not admit of being paid for。
Again； there are cases where there are no means of enforcing indemnity。 In Macaulay's draft of the Indian Penal Code； breaches of contract for the carriage of passengers； were made criminal。 The palanquin…bearers of India were too poor to pay damages； and yet had to be ＇41＇ trusted to carry unprotected women and children through wild and desolate tracts； where their desertion would have placed those under their charge in great danger。
In all these cases punishment remains as an alternative。 A pain can be inflicted upon the wrong…doer； of a sort which does not restore the injured party to his former situation； or to another equally good； but which is inflicted for the very purpose of causing pain。 And so far as this punishment takes the place of compensation； whether on account of the death of the person to whom the wrong was done； the indefinite number of persons affected； the impossibility of estimating the worth of the suffering in money； or the poverty of the criminal； it may be said that one of its objects is to gratify the desire for vengeance。 The prisoner pays with his body。
The statement may be made stronger still； and it may be said； not only that the law does； but that it ought to； make the gratification of revenge an object。 This is the opinion； at any rate； of two authorities so great； and so opposed in other views； as Bishop Butler and Jeremy Bentham。 /1/ Sir James Stephen says； 〃The criminal law stands to the pas