A True Party-man Hates And Despises Candour.

In This Consists The Difference Between The Character Of A Miser And That Of A Person Of Exact Economy And Assiduity. The One Is Anxious About Small Matters For Their Own Sake; The Other Attends To Them Only In Consequence Of The Scheme Of Life Which He Has Laid Down To Himself.

The Statesman Who Should Attempt To Direct Private People In What Manner They Ought To Employ Their Capitals Would Not Only Load Himself With Most Unnecessary Attention But Assume An Authority Which Could Safely Be Trusted To No Council And Senate Whatever, And Which Would Nowhere Be So Dangerous As In The Hands Of Man Who Have Folly And Presumption Enough To Fancy Himself Fit To Exercise It.

Whatever Work He Does, Beyond What Is Sufficient To Purchase His Own Maintenance, Can Be Squeezed Out Of Him By Violence Only, And Not By Any Interest Of His Own.

I Have No Great Faith In Political Arithmetic, And I Mean Not To Warrant The Exactness Of Either Of These Computations.

The Necessaries Of Life Occasion The Great Expense Of The Poor. They Find It Difficult To Get Food, And The Greater Part Of Their Little Revenue Is Spent In Getting It. The Luxuries And Vanities Of Life Occasion The Principal Expense Of The Rich, And A Magnificent House Embellishes And Sets Off To The Best Advantage All The Other Luxuries And Vanities Which They Possess ... It Is Not Very Unreasonable That The Rich Should Contribute To The Public Expense, Not Only In Proportion To Their Revenue, But Something More Than In That Proportion.