Itmayberemarkedbythewaythat，whilethechargeofpartialityorcorruption，oftenheardasagainstthesehighertribunals，mayinafewscatteringinstancesbefounded，thatisafterallnotmuchtothepointasregardspracticalconsequences。Thegreaternumberofthecourts，indeedvirtuallytheentirejudiciary，arenodoubtabovesubstantialsuspicioninthepremises。Andafterall，iftheywerenotincorruptible，-ifthecommonrunofthetribunalswerecorruptlyworkingintheinterestoftheemployersorowners，-thatneednotseriouslyaffecttheoutcomeasregardsthegeneraltenorofthedecisionshandeddown。Iftheyarecorruptorbiassed，theywilldecideinfavoroftheowners，whocanaffordtopay，andtheywillbeunderthenecessityoffindingplausiblereasonsinlawforsodoing。Suchreasoncanbefoundonlyinthemetaphysicalnaturalrightsbasisofthelaw；andifitcanbefoundbythehelpofsuchlegalratiocination，thenitisavalidgroundofdecision，thatbeingthepeculiarmeritofmetaphysicalgroundsofdecision。Ontheotherhand，ifthecourtisa“learned，uprightjudge，“hewilllookforthegroundsofdecisioninthesameplaceandfindtheminthesameshape。Necessarilyso，sincethepointindisputeisalmostinvariablyaquestionofthelegalrightsofpropertyasagainstthematerialrequirementsofcomfortoroflivelihood；andtherightsofpropertyarethefoundationofmodernlawandorder，whiletherequirementsofcomfortorlivelihoodpassedoutofthescopeofthelawontheabrogationoftheoutwornsystemofmandatoryprescriptionsgoverningindustrialandtraderelationsinearlymoderntimes。
　　Sincethedisputesinquestionrarelyifeverariseoutofabreachofcontractonthepartoftheemployer-owner，thedecisioncanordinarily，inthenatureofthecase，notgoagainsthim，inasmuchasthefoundationofeconomiclawandorderisthefreedomandinviolabilityofpecuniarycontracts。Itshould，infact，benearlyamatterofindifferencetothe“popular“sideofthisclassoflitigationwhetherthecourtsarecorruptornot。Thequestionhaslittleelsethanaspeculativeinterest。Inthenatureofthecasetheowneralonehas，ordinarily，anystandingincourt。Allofwhicharguesthatthereareprobablyveryfewcourtsthatareinanydegreecorruptorbiassed，sofarastoucheslitigationofthisclass。Effortstocorruptthemwouldbeaworkofsupererogation，besidesbeingimmoral。
　　ThisisnottrueinnearlythesamedegreeforthemercantilepoliciesofEngland，eveninearlymoderntimes。InEnglishpolicy，undertheinchoateconstitutionalsystemofthemercantilistera，theulterioravowedendisalwaysthebusinessadvantageofthe“commonwealth。“Theprincecomesinratherassecondthanasfirstclaimantonthesolicitudeofthemercantiliststatesman。
　　11。Thelineofdescentofthepreconceptionofpatriotismorchauvinism，asitfindsexpressioninthislivelysenseofpecuniarysolidarity，maybeoutlinedasfollows:UndertheclangentileortribalsystemoutofwhichtheWest-EuropeanpeoplespassedintotheregimeoffeudalChristendom，agivengroupstoodtogetherinaunionofoffenceanddefence，warlikeandeconomic，onthebasisofaputativebloodrelationship。Whenthemanorortheessentiallyservilemarkcametoreplacetheclangroupastheeconomicandcivilunit，thebondofputativebloodrelationshippersistedinaslightlymodifiedformandforce，theincidenceofthesenseofsolidarity，the“consciousnessofkind，“thenshiftingtothenewgroupunit，withallegiancecentringonthefeudalheadofthegroup，insteadof，asformerly，ontheseniorlineofputativedescent。Whenthestatecameforwardinmedievalandearlymoderntimesandtookoverthepowersandprerogativesoftheheadofthemanororthefeudallord，ittookoveralsotheincidenceofthissenseofallegiance，andthesenseofsolidaritycametocoverthelargergroupofthenationwhichhadsucceededtotheautonomyofthemanor。Wherethelineofinstitutionaldescentrunsthroughtheindustrialtown，withguild，handicraft，andlocalgovernment，thetransientfeaturesofthegrowtharesuperficiallydifferentbutineffectmuchthesame。Thedisciplineofwarfare，whichkeptupthepracticeofjointactionandhadtheappearanceofjointenterprise，servedtokeepthesenseofpatrioticsolidarityfirmandvigorousandenabledittocoverotherinterestsaswellastheprincelyenterpriseofwarfareandstate-making。Whereverunbrokenpeaceprevailedforanappreciableperiod，soastoaffectthegrowthoftraditions，thesenseofnationalsolidarityshowedsymptomsofslackening。Forpurposesofeconomicsolidaritythecommonwealthisconceivedafterthemannerofanovergrownmanor。Itfiguresassuch，e。g。，inEnglishmercantilistwritingsofthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcentury，aswellasinthepatriotictradepoliticsofthepresent。
　　Inpassingitmayberemarkedthatthefactofthissenseofsolidaritybeingananachronismmustnotbetakenasimplyinganythingfororagainstthesubstantialmeritsofsuchaframeofmind。
　　Thetwocomplementarysentiments-patriotismandpecuniarysolidarity-arefoundinunequalmeasureamongtheseveralnationsofChristendom。Thedisparityinthisrespectcorrespondsroughlywithadisparityinpastnationalexperience。TheContinentalpeoples，e。g。，have，onthewhole，areadierandfuller，moreunequivocal，patrioticconviction，astheyhavealsohadalonger，moresevere，andlaterdisciplineinthefealtythatgoeswithasystemofdynasticwarfareandgradedservitude；
　　whereastheEnglish-speakingpeoplesareanimatedwithamoresecureconvictionthatmoneyvalueisthechiefendofseriousendeavorandthatbusinesssolvencyisthefinalattributeofmanhood。Butineithercasetheoutcomeistheprimacyofbusinessinthecounselsofnations，anditsempireisnonethelesssecureforitsrestingmoreononeortheotherofthesetwosupports。
　　ForEnglandthelasthalfoftheeighteenthcentury，forContinentalEuropeandAmericathelasthalfofthenineteenth。
　　IncolonialcommercethedateforbothEnglandandtheContinentismuchearlier。
　　“Ring“ishereusedasadesignationofthislooseorganizationofbusinessinterestsfortheguidanceofpolicy，withoutimplyingcriticismoftheringorofitsaimsandmethods。
　　Armamentsandlargemilitaryandnavalestablishmentshavealsoasecondaryattraction，ofamoreintimatekind，forenterprisingbusinessmen，inthattheyaffordopportunitiesfortransactionsofapeculiarlylucrativecharacter。Oneofthepartiesthegovernmentofficialconcernedinsuchtransactionshaslessthantheusualincentivetodriveaclosebargain。Hisownprivategainandlossisnotimmediatelyinvolved，sothatheislessgiventopettyhucksteringandclosesurveillanceoftheexecutionofthecontractsmade。Whataddsforcetothisconsiderationisthefactthatmilitaryandnavalestablishmentshabituallyarewhatthevulgarwouldcallcorrupt。ThepecuniaryinterestoftheofficialsdoesnotcoincidewiththatoftheestablishmentThereisanappreciable“marginoferror“whichasagaciousbusinessmanmayturntoaccount。
　　Thegreatbusinessinterestsarethemoreinclinedtolookkindlyonanextensionofwarlikeenterpriseandarmaments，sincethepecuniaryadvantagesinuretothem，whilethepecuniaryburdenfallschieflyontherestofthecommunity。Itis，tosaytheleast，highlyimprobablethatthebusinessgainswhichaccruefromawell-conductedforeignpolicyever，inmoderntimes，equalthecostatwhichtheyaresecured；butthatconsiderationscarcelyenters，sincethecostsarenotpaidoutofbusinessgains，butoutoftheindustryoftherestofthepeople。Thepeople，however，areanimatedwithanuncriticalpersuasionthattheyhavesomesortofaresiduaryshareinthesegains，andthatthisresiduaryshareinsomemannerexceedsthewholeofthegainssecured。
　　SeeChapterX。above。
　　Cf。Hobson，Imperialism，pt。I，ch。VII，pt。II，ch。I，andVII。
　　Ontherelationofbusinesstowarlikeexpenditureinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，cf。，Ehrenberg，ZeitalterderFugger。
　　TheTheoryofBusinessEnterprisebyThorsteinVeblen1904
　　TheCulturalIncidenceoftheMachineProcessSofarasregardsthenon-mechanicalfactorsofculture，suchasreligion，politics，andevenbusinessenterprise，thepresentisinaverylargedegreecomparablewiththeschemeofthingsthatprevailedontheContinentofEuropeintheseventeenthcentury。Andsofarastheworkingoftheseculturalfactorsisundisturbedbyforcesthatwerenotpresentintheolderdays，theyshouldlogicallyagainworkoutinsuchasituationascametoprevailinCentralEuropeinthecourseoftheeighteenthcentury。Themodernsituation，ofcourse，isdrawnonalargerscale；butthatisduetotheintrusionofanewtechnology，adifferent“stateoftheindustrialarts，“andnottoasubstantiallyalteredrangeofreligious，political，orbusinessconceptions。ThepitchofsqualorthatcharacterizedvulgarlifeinthebusierContinentalcountriesatthecloseofthegreateraofpoliticscouldprobablynotbereachedagain，butthatagain，isdue，nottothesespiritualfactorsofculturalgrowth，buttothealteredstateoftheindustrialarts。Thefactorinthemodernsituationthatisalientotheancientregimeisthemachinetechnology，withitsmanyandwideramifications。
　　BusinessconceptionsandbusinessmethodswerepresentinvigorousgrowthinCentralEuropeinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，astheyhadbeeninSouthEuropefromaslightlyearlierdate；althoughthelargesweepofbusinessenterpriseisnothaduntilalaterdate，beingconditionedbythemachinetechnology。Businessmethodsandtheapparatusofbusinesstrafficdevelopverypromptlywheneverandwhereverthesituationcallsforthem；suchistheteachingofeconomichistory。1*Thereisnothingreconditeaboutthem，littlethathastobeacquiredbyaprotracted，cumulativeexperiencerunningovermanygenerations，suchasisinvolvedintechnologicaldevelopment。Thisbusinessdevelopmentinearliermoderntimes，togetherwiththeaccumulationsoffundedwealththatcameofthisbusinessenterprise，rantheircoursetoafinishinContinentalEurope，leavingnobasisforanewstart。Thenewstartfromwhichthecurrentsituationtakesitsrise，inEuropeandelsewhere，wasgiventotheContinentalpeoplesbytheEnglish，ready-made，intheso-calledIndustrialRevolution。Thenatural-rightsmetaphysics，towhichtheeventualbreakdownoftheoldContinentalsystemoweditsspecificcharacter，camealsofromtheEnglish。2*
　　InpointofbloodandculturaldescentthepopulationofGreatBritaindidnotdiffermateriallyfromtheirneighborsacrosstheChanneloracrosstheNorthSea。3*ButfromthebeginningofthemodernculturaleraGreatBritainstoodoutsideofthegeneralEuropeansituation，byforceofitsphysicalisolation。Sothatduringthemodernera，downtothecloseoftheeighteenthcentury，theBritishcommunitywasinthepositionofaninterestedthirdpartyratherthanaparticipantinthepoliticalconcertofEurope。Theeraof“statemaking，“socalled，isanerainwhichEnglandinterferes，butis，onthewhole，notgreatlyinterferedwith，sofarasherownhomeaffairsareconcerned。England，andpresentlyGreatBritain，beingreducedtolawandorderunderonecrownandlivinginaconditionofisolationandrelativelyofinternalpeace，theculturalgrowthofthatcountrytookarelativelypeaceabledirection。Thedominantnoteofeverydaylifewasindustryandtrade，notdynasticpoliticsandwar。Thisnationalexperiencegaveasitsoutcomeconstitutionalgovernmentandthemodernindustrialtechnology，togetherwiththeanimusandthepointofviewofthemodernmaterialisticscience。Thepointofdepartureforthemorerecent，currentsituation，therefore，isatwofoldone:1theBritishpeaceablevariantoftheWesternculturehascontributedconstitutionalmethodsandnaturalrights，togetherwiththemachinetechnologybroughtinundertheheadofthe“industrialrevolution“；and2therearethepatrioticidealsandanimositiesleftasaresidueofthewarlikepoliticaltrafficinContinentalEurope。
　　Sincethenewdeparture，madeonthebasisofnaturalrightsandmodernindustrialandscientificmethods，thecomplexofnationsandofinternationalrelationsisasingle，notatwofoldone。Thestageoverwhichaffairs，political，industrialandcultural，runtheircourseisnolongerContinentalorBritish，butcosmopolitan，comprisingallcivilizedcommunitiesandallcivilizedinterests。Sothatthereisnotnow，astherewasinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，anisolationhospitalfortechnology，science，andcivilrights，setapartfromthegeneralcurrentofculturaldevelopment。Whatevertheforcesatworkinthemodernsituationmayeventuallybringtopass，therefore，theoutcomemusttouchallcommunitiesinthesamewayandinapproximatelythesamedegree。Iftheoutcomeisdynasticpoliticsandarmamentagainplayedtoafinishinpopularsqualor，aristocraticvirtues，anduniversalbankruptcy，therewillbenopeaceablecommunityofmatter-of-factmechanicsandshopkeepersleftinreservefromwhichtomakeanewculturalandindustrialstart。Themoderntechnologyhas，inamanner，cutawaythegroundoutofwhichitfirstgrewandfromwhichitgatheredforcetoreshapethecourseofhistory。Ithasmadeitimpossibleforanycommunitytostandpeaceablyoutsideofthegreatcomplexofnations。
　　Butwithinthecomprehensivesituationofto-daythereisthisnewfactor，themachineprocess。InanearlierchapterII