Incomparingthedecisionsofthehighercourtswiththoseofthelowertheycontrastmostsignallywiththedecisionsrenderedbyjuriesinthelowertribunals。Whilethiscontrasthasasignificanceinanotherconnection，itcastsnoshadowonthelegalityofthedecisionsofthecourtsofhigherinstance。Thejuries，ingreatmeasure，speakforthestrainedsympathiesofthevulgar，whichareamattersomewhatapartfromthefoundationsoflawandorder。9*
Popularsentiment，then，doesnotatalluniformlybearoutthesedecisionsofthecourtsindisputesbetweenpropertyrightsandnakedmankind，especiallynotinthemorerigorousenforcementoftheprincipleoffreecontract。Thisdiscrepancyservestoshowthatthevulgar，thelaity，fromwhosenumbersthejuriesaredrawn，havenotanadequatesenseoftheprinciplesthatlieattherootofthelaw；whichmaybedueinparttotheirnotrealizinghowessentialafoundationoflaw，order，andcommonwelfaretheseprinciplesofnaturallibertyare。Thevisibledisparityinthedistributionofpropertymaymakethoseclasseswhohavelittlepropertyenviousofthewealthymembers，andsomakethemloseinterestinthemaintenanceoftherightsofproperty。Butapartfromthis，thedisciplineofdailylife，fromwhichthecommon-sensenotionsofthevulgarareingoodpartderived，isnolongerinfullaccordwiththenatural-rightsconceptionshandeddownfromtheeighteenthcentury。Inotherwords，theconceptionsofnaturalrightsonwhichthecommonlawrestsembodyatechnicallycompetentformulationofthedeliverancesofthatbodyofcommonsensewhichwasinculcatedbythedisciplineofeverydaylifeintheeighteenthcentury，beforetheadventofthecurrentsituation；whereasthedisciplineofeverydaylifeunderthecurrenttechnologicalandbusinesssituationinculcatesabodyofcommon-senseviewssomewhatatvariancewiththereceivednatural-rightsnotions。
Thereisapparentlysomethingofadivergencebetweenthereceivednotionsonthisheadandthedeliverancesoflatter-daycommonsense。Thedivergenceisneitherwelldefinednorconsistent。Thelatter-dayattitudetowardquestionsofthekindinvolvedisvague，chieflynegativeorcritical，andapparentlyfluctuating；butafterallthereisasomewhatpersistentdivergence，whichmayevenbesaidtohaveasystematiccharacter，sofarasitgoes。Itrunsinthedirectionofapartialandvacillatingdisavowalordistrustofthemetaphysicsoffreecontract，andevenofnaturallibertygenerally。Thisuncertaintyofallegiancetothereceivedfoundationsoflawandorderprevailsinunequaldegreesamongthevariousclassesofthecommunity，beingapparentlylargestandmostoutspokenamongtheworkmenoftheindustrialtowns，andbeing，onthewhole，lessnoticeableamongthepropertiedandprofessionalclassesandtheruralpopulation。Thepeculiarclassdistributionofthisdisintegrationofreceivedconvictions，aswellasitsconnectionwithmodernindustrialconditions，willbetakenupagainpresentlyinanotherconnection。
Thestate，thatistosay，thegovernment，wasonceanorganizationforthecontrolofaffairsintheinterestofprincelyordynasticends。Ininternalaffairsstatecraftwasoccupiedwithquestionsofthedynasticsuccession，theendeavorsandintriguesofthepoliticalmagnates，fiscaladministrationdirectedtofindingadequatesupportfortheprincelypower，andthelike。Inexternalpoliticstheobjectiveendwasdynasticprestigeandsecurity，militarysuccess，andthelike。Suchisstillinparttheendofpoliticalendeavorinthosecountries，as，e。g。，Germany，Austria，orItaly，wherethetransitiontoaconstitutionalgovernmenthasnotbeencompleted。Butsincetheadventofconstitutionalgovernmentandparliamentaryrepresentation，businessendshavetakentheleadofdynasticendsinstatecraft，verymuchinthesamemeasureasthetransitiontoconstitutionalmethodshasbeeneffectuallycarriedthrough。Aconstitutionalgovernmentisabusinessgovernment。Itisparticularlythroughthebusinessexpedientofparliamentaryvotingonthebudgetthatanyconstitutionalexecutive，e。g。，iskeptwithinconstitutionalbounds；andthebudgetisvotedwithamainviewtoitsexpediencyforbusinessends。Theexpediencyofbusinessenterpriseisnotquestioned，whereastheexpediencyofanincreaseofprincelypoweranddignity，withtheincidentalcosts，maybequestioned。
Moderngovernmentalpolicies，lookingastheydotothefurtheringofbusinessinterestsastheirchiefcare，areofa“mercantile“complexion。Theyaimtofostertrade，asdidthemercantilepoliciesofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，althoughsince“trade“hascometoincludemuchelsethanforeigncommerce，themodernpolicieslooktobusinessinthemorecomprehensivesensewhichthetermnownecessarilyhas。Butthesemodernmercantilepolicies，withtheirtariffs，treaties，interstatecommerceregulations，andmaximsprohibitingall“restraintoftrade，“areafterallnotofthesamenatureasthemercantilepoliciesoftheoldFrenchandGermanstatesmen，whichtheysuperficiallyresemble。Theold“mercantilesystem，“asitprevailedontheContinentofEurope，wasconceivedintheinterestoftheprince，thefurtheringofcommercialadvantagebeingameanstoprincelypoweranddignity。10*Themodernmercantilismunderconstitutionalrule，ontheotherhand，lookstotheprinceortothegovernmentasameanstotheendofcommercialgain。Withthetransitiontoconstitutionalruleandmethods，thediscretionandautonomyinthecasehaspassedfromthehandsoftheprinceintothoseofthebusinessmen，andtheinterestsofthebusinessmenhavesupersededthoseofthecrown。