¹ No attempt will be made here to give a bibliography of the development of political ideas in England during the present century. Unless otherwise stated, the books mentioned refer to the first editions as published in London. This paper deals exclusively with English political thought. Further, with one exception, no effort will be made to show the relation of certain political ideas to recent legislation or party policy. An effective treatment of this relation would require a paper much longer than the present one. To Professor F. W. Coker, the present writer is indebted for a number of valuable suggestions.

² Bosanquet's, The Philosophical Theory of the State was published in 1899Google Scholar.

³ Some understanding of the recent drift in contemporary political ideas in England may be obtained by comparing Hobhouse's, L. T.Liberalism (1911)Google Scholar with his Elements of Social Justice (1922), and the Fabian Essays in Socialism (1889) with Sidney and Webb's, BeatriceA Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (1920)Google Scholar. See also the introduction by Sidney Webb (now Lord Passfield) to the 1920 edition of the Fabian Essays.

⁴ In Cole's book, see especially Chaps. VII, VIII, and XV. Hobson's book is published by D. C. Heath and Co., Boston and New York.

⁵ Lindsay's theory is substantially given in Sovereignty (Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. XXIV, 1924, pp. 235–254)Google Scholar and (with Laski, H. J.) Symposium: Bosanquet's Theory of the General Will (Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume VIII, 1928, pp. 31–62)Google Scholar. Also of interest in this connection are his “The State in Recent Political Theory (Political Quarterly, No. 1, February, 1914, pp. 128–145)Google Scholar; “The State and Society” (in The International Crisis: The Theory of the State, pp. 92–109, Oxford University Press, 1916)Google Scholar; Karl Marx's Capital (Oxford University Press, 1925)Google Scholar; The State, The Church, and the Community (Present Day Papers, No. 11, issued by Copec Committee, 1927); General Will and Common Mind (a lecture, 1928); and The Essentials of Democracy (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1929)Google Scholar.

⁶ The substance of Green's theory of sovereignty is set forth in his Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, pp. 93-105.

⁷ Principles of Political Obligation, p. 98.

⁸ “Thus when it has been ascertained in regard to any people that there is some determinate person or persons to whom, in the last resort, they pay habitual obedience, we may call this person or persons sovereign if we please, but we must not ascribe to him or them the real power which governs the actions and forbearances of the people, even those actions or forbearances (only a very small part) which are prescribed by the sovereign. This power is a much more complex and less determinate, or less easily determinable, thing; but a sense of possessing common interests, a desire for common objects on the part of the people, is always the condition of its existence. Let this sense or desire—which may properly be called general will—cease to operate, or let it come into general conflict with the sovereign commands, and the habitual obedience will cease also.” Principles of Political Obligation, pp. 96-97.

⁹ It should be noted that there is some difference in the interpretation of Austin as given by Green and by Lindsay. For our present purpose, such difference is not of great significance. See, however, Green's, view in his Principles of Political Obligation, pp. 95–96Google Scholar, and Lindsay's, view in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. XXIV, p. 238Google Scholar. It should also be noted that we are not here immediately concerned whether the interpretations of Green and Lindsay of the writers they analyze is in all particulars correct.

¹⁰ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. XXIV, p. 243Google Scholar.

¹¹ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. XXIV, p. 248Google Scholar. See also The Essentials of Democracy, pp. 60-67, on the problem involved.

¹² The present schematic survey of Lindsay's doctrine may perhaps show it in an unduly simplified light. I t is, however, believed that it is no more simplified than any abridgment necessitates. Again, the sharpness of outline may be offset by a gain in clarity. See, however, his two contributions published by the Aristotelian Society, referred to above, where the substance of his theory is given.

¹³ See Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. XXIV, pp. 235-236 and 245 ffGoogle Scholar. Among English critics of sovereignty, Lindsay mentions specifically Figgis, Laski, and Cole.

¹⁴ “I should like, if I may, to state my own way of rejecting this approach [Bosanquet's] to the analysis of the problem. I do not deny that the state is the great coördinating organ of society. I do not either deny that some such coördinating organ there must be, if anarchy is not to reign. There are conflicting purposes in society: the burglar and the policeman, the Roman Catholic and the secularist, Sir Alfred Mond and Mr. Cook. For the purpose of social peace, the terms of the life these opposites must live have to be laid down. All of this, I take it, is common ground between idealism and its critics. But, at this point, the paths seem to me to diverge radically.” Laski, H. J., in Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. VIII, 1928, p. 48Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See, for example, Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. VIII, pp. 43–44Google Scholar, and The Essentials of Democracy, pp. 68-82.

¹⁶ The following books may give an understanding of the movement in its developed form: Russell, Bertrand, The Principles of Social Reconstruction (1916)Google Scholar; S. and Webb, B., A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (1920)Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H., Social Theory (2nd ed., 1921)Google Scholar, and The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy (1929); Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society (1921)Google Scholar; Hobhouse, L. T., The Elements of Social Justice (1922)Google Scholar; Laski, H. J., The Grammar of Politics (1925)Google Scholar. As already stated, Lindsay refers specifically only to Figgis, Cole, and Laski; but a reading of the above books will show, it is believed, that the views of these three are generally shared in varied extent by other writers. The emphasis on the movement here placed necessarily involves omission from the analysis of some striking suggestions offered by certain individual writers. This, however, is offset by the aim which the present method has of giving some unity and coherence to the constructive aspects of the entire contemporary development. It should be added also that, as already mentioned, Cole has now discarded his view of organizing the coördinating authority mainly on a functional basis (see The Next Ten Years, etc., Chap. VII). The suggestion of linking functional activities with the government is, however, generally advocated.

¹⁷ See his General Will and Common Mind, p. 27, and The Essentials of Democracy, pp. 80-81.

¹⁸ “The industrial organization which we are thus led to contemplate is one in which unearned wealth would accrue to the community; the universal and elementary conditions of private work and remuneration would be laid down by law, and would be adjusted in detail, developed, expanded, and improved as the conditions of each trade allow by Trade Boards; while industrial management would be in the hands of joint boards of consumers and producers, the municipality, coöperative associations, or private enterprise according to the nature of the industry, and the relative efficiency for varying purposes of which various forms of organization prove themselves capable. These are questions of the means wherein we are to be guided by experience of results, not questions of the ends by reference to which we judge the results themselves.” Hobhouse, L. T., The Elements of Social Justice, p. 184Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For some of these questions directed to Lindsay, see the conclusion of Professor Laski's discussion in the Symposium: Bosanquet's Theory of the General Will, referred to above, and also his article on “Law and the State,” Economica, November, 1929Google Scholar.