Individual wealth, not derived from an exclusive interest, is
so far from participating in the spirit of aristocracy, that
its contributions must at least be equivalent to its ability,
and its interest is therefore repugnant to every pecuniary
oppression.
Even its disbursements through the medium of tenant, would operate as diminutions of rent, and form deductions from its income. And this species of individual wealth, constitutes the whole mass of power and talents, by which the poor and uninformed are secured in their rights and liberties, under the bond which unites all persons having the same interest. The prejudices arising from words, darken the mind so generally against a perception of real qualities and principles, as to justify us in recalling to the reader's recollection, a few cases to expose the frailty of such precipitate conclusions.
The Lacedemonians had two kings; but the government was aristocratick. The Athenians had a king archion; but the government was democratick. The Roman government was called indiscriminately a commonwealth or republick, whether its complexion was aristocratick, democratick or monarchical. In all its stages, the English government has been called a limited monarchy, whether the barons were masters of the king and people, the king of the people and barons, or a paper fabrick of the rest of the nation. The words "king or republick," do not make a monarch or a free government. Nor do the words "duke, marquis, bishop," make an aristocracy. It is made by principles and qualities. A separate interest in a minority, is one principle or quality, which makes an aristocracy; and a mode of extracting wealth by law from the rest of the nation, another. Neither riches without a separate interest, nor a separate interest without riches, can in the present state of things make an aristocracy.
Mr. Adams has cautioned us against the abuse of political phrases, whilst he reiterates the expressions "a mixed government; checks and balances; middle orders," without
