of private property" deterring. The invader of course devoutly uses the first phrase, and indignantly applies the
second to those who oppose him.
Where is there an instance of an invasion of private property, equal to that
effected by the paper system of England? As its greatest
invader, it has of course been the loudest advocate for its
safety.
"Energetick government" is a phrase happily chosen to please honest men, and to beguile nations of unmanageable power. Under the agreeable jingle in the antithesis, between "protection and allegiance" was long hidden a large reservoir of arbitrary power. Of the same family is the ancient idea of a contract between the king and the people." Implying equality, either party might construe this contract, and the active power of construction being in the hands of kings, they made all their own actions, fulfilments, and such actions of the people as they pleased, breaches.
There is edification and safety in challenging political words and phrases as traitors, and trying them rigorously by principles, before we allow them the smallest degree of confidence. As the servants of principles, they gain admission into the family, and thus acquire the best opportunities of assassinating their masters, should they become treacherous. That useful and major part of mankind, comprised within natural interests (by which I mean agricultural, commercial, mechanical, and scientifick; in opposition to legal and artificial, such as hierarchical, patrician, and banking) is exclusively the object of imposition, whenever words are converted into traitors to principles.
The good words "order, a sacred regard for private property, national credit," have made the British government bad; and the good word "truth" makes sedition laws. The same words, faithful to principles, would protect private property against stock, keep a nation out of debt, destroy sedition law, and, in short, be the allies of honest and moderate government.
