Section 4
There was a certain truth in Holsten’s
assertion that the law was ‘hundreds of years
old.’ It was, in relation to current thought
and widely accepted ideas, an archaic thing.
While almost all the material and methods of life
had been changing rapidly and were now changing still
more rapidly, the law-courts and the legislatures of
the world were struggling desperately to meet modern
demands with devices and procedures, conceptions of
rights and property and authority and obligation that
dated from the rude compromises of relatively barbaric
times. The horse-hair wigs and antic dresses of
the British judges, their musty courts and overbearing
manners, were indeed only the outward and visible
intimations of profounder anachronisms. The legal
and political organisation of the earth in the middle
twentieth century was indeed everywhere like a complicated
garment, outworn yet strong, that now fettered the
governing body that once it had protected.
Yet that same spirit of free-thinking
and outspoken publication that in the field of natural
science had been the beginning of the conquest of
nature, was at work throughout all the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries preparing the spirit of the new
world within the degenerating body of the old.
The idea of a greater subordination of individual
interests and established institutions to the collective
future, is traceable more and more clearly in the
literature of those times, and movement after movement
fretted itself away in criticism of and opposition
to first this aspect and then that of the legal, social,
and political order. Already in the early nineteenth
century Shelley, with no scrap of alternative, is
denouncing the established rulers of the world as
Anarchs, and the entire system of ideas and suggestions
that was known as Socialism, and more particularly
its international side, feeble as it was in creative
proposals or any method of transition, still witnesses
to the growth of a conception of a modernised system
of inter-relationships that should supplant the existing
tangle of proprietary legal ideas.
The word ‘Sociology’ was
invented by Herbert Spencer, a popular writer upon
philosophical subjects, who flourished about the middle
of the nineteenth century, but the idea of a state,
planned as an electric-traction system is planned,
without reference to pre-existing apparatus, upon
scientific lines, did not take a very strong hold upon
the popular imagination of the world until the twentieth
century. Then, the growing impatience of the
American people with the monstrous and socially paralysing
party systems that had sprung out of their absurd
electoral arrangements, led to the appearance of what
came to be called the ‘Modern State’ movement,
and a galaxy of brilliant writers, in America, Europe,
and the East, stirred up the world to the thought
of bolder rearrangements of social interaction, property,
employment, education, and government, than had ever
been contemplated before. No doubt these Modern
State ideas were very largely the reflection upon
social and political thought of the vast revolution
in material things that had been in progress for two
hundred years, but for a long time they seemed to
be having no more influence upon existing institutions
than the writings of Rousseau and Voltaire seemed to
have had at the time of the death of the latter.
They were fermenting in men’s minds, and it
needed only just such social and political stresses
as the coming of the atomic mechanisms brought about,
to thrust them forward abruptly into crude and startling
realisation.