into ethical justification. Some, as Hobbes, may argue that the price of resistance is always greater than the values it obtains. Others, as T. H. Green, may argue that we confront the state in fear and awe because ultimately it will come to summarize the best of ourselves. Yet the simple fact is that from the standpoint of internal arrangement the true heart of a state is in its government; and the unity it represents is not so much the interest of its subjects as a whole as of that part which dominates the economic life of its members. England, France, America, mean on domestic issues a complex of interests which struggle among themselves for survival. In any realistic analysis, there is no necessary unity of purpose between the groups we there discover. The wills we meet are aiming at achievement which often involves the destruction of the legal order maintained by government. There is no relevant unity between the England conceived by Mr. Smillie and the England conceived by the Duke of Northumberland. There is no ultimate common ground upon which the Trade Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries can meet. The will that in the sovereign state secures expression, seems always to be a partial will seeking less a common benefit than to use the vital organ of the state for its private purpose. The state, in short, is a class state; and outside its occasional concessions, its instruments register a good not merely in fact, but in purpose also, more narrow than the teleology of the state would seem to warrant.

Socialists have therefore proposed a reorganization of the state which is entirely subversive of its sovereignty. Some, like Mr. Cole, propose to replace it by a system in which there are as many organs of supreme power as there are vital functions to be performed. Others, as Mr. and Mrs. Webb, propose a bipartite division of the state in which the balance of power between the parts will not only give different aspects of the state their due significance, but also secure the emergence of a broader liberty thereby. That towards which we seem to be moving is a conception of social organization in which the basis of social position will be function and not wealth. 1 The conquest of the productive process by labour will involve a separation of its interests as a unit of administration from those of the consumers; and schemes like that of Mr. Justice Sankey for the coal industry are only instances of an economic federalism which is coming to be the basis of the scheme by which the Socialists propose to replace the capitalist order. Whether this federalism be envisaged in guild socialist terms or not, what it involves is the division of the sovereign power. And the movement is the stronger because its origins are to be sought not in the rarified atmosphere of metaphysical analysis, but in the solid facts of economic structure and administrative mechanics.

And it is precisely here that it joins the third great tendency of modern political science. No one can read the history of our

1 Cf. R. H. Tawney's brilliant monograph, The Sickness of an Acquisitive Society (1920).

English Staatslehre without being impressed by the facile psychology with which it has been satisfied. Fear, as with Hobbes, self-interest, as with Bentham, habit, as with Sir Henry Maine-in the explanation of our institutions it is with some such simplicity as this that we have been presented. The dominant need of political philosophy has been the analysis of the complexity of motives by which the actions of men are determined. So far, indeed, we have got but little beyond the formulation of our questions. But at least we know that the work of the psychologists and of anthropology are fundamental. Mr. Graham Wallas has made finally impossible the reliance upon the Benthamite psychology which still holds sway in the economic domain. What we are coming to see is that the first need of any political order is the satisfaction of certain primary desires; upon their basis are certain secondary desires, like love of property and of the good opinion of others, which move politically under the ægis of herd instinct. In such a background we begin to discover either that our present political organization thwarts the natural impulses of men or that the avenues through which they can secure satisfaction are socially wasteful to the community as a whole. This, for example, is the foundation of Mr. Tawney's admirable analysis of the modern order. It is the root, often unconsciously, of that discontent which in its ultimate form becomes a creed of revolution. No one can read studies like those of Rivers upon the Melanesians, without the sense that the early history of man is too profoundly the clue to his habits for political science to adventure its neglect. And the more modern study of the unconscious suggests still further avenues of exploration. Psychology is likely to make political science more complex in the future; but it will give it the surer ground of a foundation in the actual nature of men.

1

Here, it must be admitted, all conclusions as yet are tentative; and the attack upon the sovereign state suffers hardly less than its antithesis from its vicious intellectualism. Mr. Cole and Mr. Webb, for example, consistently write as though a state may be envisaged in which the members are uniquely interested in the technical details of administration; where the fact is that man by nature is a lazy animal who is most easily content with the obvious channels of satisfaction for his wants. What political science above all needs is inventiveness in the large problems of organization, an inventiveness more likely to proceed from such analysis as Lord Haldane's discussion, before the Coal Commission, of the technique of the civil service, than from the formal treatment of political theory. The Staatslehre of the next generation may well start from the assumption that the sovereign state has failed; but the novelties by which the sovereign state is to be superseded are not less likely to suffer shipwreck unless their foundations are different in the sources from which they derive as well as the conclusions to which they tend.

1 The History of Melanesian Society (1914).

School Notes

THE development of the new scheme for Commerce Degrees necessitated an increase in the teaching staff of the School, and in June last, the University of London made the following appointments under the terms of the Cassel Trust:

PROFESSOR GUTTERIDGE: Sir Ernest Cassel Professor in Com-
mercial and Industrial Law in the University of London.
PROFESSOR DICKSEE: Sir Ernest Cassel Professor in Accounting
and Business Methods in the University of London.
MR. T. E. GREGORY and MR. H. DALTON: Sir Ernest Cassel
Readers in the University of London.

MR. L. R. JONES, MR. J. DRUMMOND SMITH and MR. T. A.
JOYNT: Lecturers in Commerce in the University of
London.

Mr. H. J. Laski and Mr. Herman Finer have also been appointed to the staff of the School during the year, the former as lecturer in Economic History and Public Administration and the latter as Assistant in the Department of Public Administration.

The total number of full time students enrolled in the Session 1920-21, up to December 15th, is 899, of whom 341 are working for the B.Sc. (Econ.), 232 for the B.Com. and 33 are research students working for higher degrees, such as M.Sc., D.Sc., and Ph.D. There are, in addition, 1,537 occasional, or part-time, students, making the total of all students attending the School this session, 2,436. There are 322 foreign and. colonial students enrolled, of whom 129 are Indians; and of this total 269 are taking full-time courses. These foreign students represent twenty-nine nationalities.

Sixteen students of the School passed the Final (Honours) Examination for the B.Sc. (Econ.) in 1920, and, of these, the following took First-Class Honours: Mr. A. R. Burns, Mr. D. J. Price, and Miss E. M. Richardson.

A School of Economics Research Studentship of £175 for one year has been awarded to Miss Leila Thomas, an M.A. of the University of Sydney, to enable her to carry on research into the Economics of the Convict System in Australia with a view to the presentation of a thesis on the subject for the degree of Ph.D.

The Degree of D.Sc. was conferred on Mr. Hugh Dalton by the Senate of the University of London at its December meeting.

ECONOMICA is issued by the London School of Economics and Political Science, under the control of an Editorial Board. It is intended primarily to afford a means to the public of becoming acquainted with the results of investigations or other work by the staff and students (past or present) of the School, but contributions of a similar kind from other sources will be welcomed.

The School takes no responsibility for the opinions or statistics put forward by the contributors.

OFFERS OF CONTRIBUTIONS to ECONOMICA by past and present students, or members of the staff of the London School of Economics, should be sent to EDITOR, ECONOMICA, The London School of Economics and Political Science, CLARE MARKET, W.C. 2.

SUBSCRIPTIONS should be sent to SECRETARY, ECONOMICA, The London School of Economics and Political Science, CLARE MARKET, W.C. 2; or to the Publishers, T. FISHER UNWIN LTD., I, ADELPHI TERRACE, LONDON.

ECONOMICA is issued in January, May and September of each year, if circumstances permit, at the price of 2/6 per number or 7/6 per annum, post free to Subscribers.