An equal division of land would be to the poor a great misfortune; they would possess far less than by the laws of the land they are at present entitled to.

When we add to this consideration an account of the immense sums annually subscribed by the rich for the support of hospitals, infirmaries, dispensaries--for the relief of sufferers by fire, tempests, famine, loss of cattle, great sickness, and other misfortunes, all of which charities must cease were all men on a level, for all men would then be equally poor,--it cannot but excite one's astonishment that so foolish a system should have ever been so much as mentioned by any man of common sense.

It is a system not practicable; and was it practicable, it would not be useful; and was it useful, it would not be just.
But some one may think, and, indeed, it has been studiously inculcated into the minds of the multitude, that a monarchy, even a limited one, is a far more expensive mode of civil government than a republic; that a civil-list of a million a year is an enormous sum, which might be saved to the nation.

Supposing that every shilling of this sum could be saved, and that every shilling of it was expended in supporting the dignity of the crown--both which suppositions are entirely false--still should I think the liberty, the prosperity, the tranquillity, the happiness of this great nation cheaply purchased by such a sum; still should I think that he would be a madman in politics who would, by a change of the constitution, risk these blessings (and France supplies us with a proof that infinite risk would be run) for a paltry saving of expense.

I am not, nor have ever been, the patron of corruption.