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 seen 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.

It is not more the duty than it is the interest of a Prince to aim