It is a fallacy in constant use with those who would level all things,
and confound right with wrong, to insist upon the inconveniences which
are attached to every choice, without taking into consideration the
different weight and consequence of those inconveniences. The question
is not concerning ABSOLUTE discontent or PERFECT satisfaction in
government; neither of which can be pure and unmixed at any time, or
upon any system. The controversy is about that degree of good humour in
the people, which may possibly be attained, and ought certainly to be
looked for. While some politicians may be waiting to know whether the
sense of every individual be against them, accurately distinguishing the
vulgar from the better sort, drawing lines between the enterprises of
a faction and the efforts of a people, they may chance to see the
government, which they are so nicely weighing, and dividing, and
distinguishing, tumble to the ground in the midst of their wise
deliberation. Prudent men, when so great an object as the security of
government, or even its peace, is at stake, will not run the risk of a
decision which may be fatal to it. They who can read the political sky
will see a hurricane in a cloud no bigger than a hand at the very edge
of the horizon, and will run into the first harbour. No lines can be
laid down for civil or political wisdom. They are a matter incapable
of exact definition. But, though no man can draw a stroke between the
confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are, upon the whole,
tolerably distinguishable. Nor will it be impossible for a prince to
find out such a mode of government, and such persons to administer
it, as will give a great degree of content to his people; without any
curious and anxious research for that abstract, universal, perfect
harmony, which, while he is seeking, he abandons those means of ordinary
tranquillity which are in his power without any research at all.