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。