But a noted argument in favour of the destruction of established governments was, that complete democracy would be much cheaper than any mixed government which contained a portion of monarchy. If the chief perfection of society were cheapness, by living in hovels, feeding on roots, drinking water, the house and window tax might be saved, also the land and malt tax, and both ordinary and extraordinary imposts upon port-wine; but habit and civilization have produced a liking for accommodations that may be not absolutely necessary. In civil society we do not estimate smallness of cost as a supreme good, the same holds in political establishments. Institutions are not good merely for being low priced, their goodness depends upon the aggregate of secure and permanent benefit, which they admit. The great proof of the benefit of revolution as an expedient of economy, was the savings that the new order of things had produced from France. “In consequence of the revolution,” said the prophets of economy, “the people will have much less to pay, and republican France, for cheapness, is a model for the imitation of other countries. For all these reasons the nobility, hierarchy, and monarchy, ought to be entirely destroyed. But such subversion is only a partial establishment of equality; every species of separate right implies inequality, and therefore ought to be abolished. All things should be in common; the destruction of kings, lords, and bishops, is only a means leading to division of property, and unrestrained gratification of passions, as the great end:” But as in Britain there was a very strong attachment to the establishments of the country, of which the aggregate result was by experience demonstrated to be supremely beneficial by the votaries of revolution, the first and grand object to be compassed was, to render the people desirous of change; while therefore the more profound and designing sought to effect subversion of establishments, in order to erect new fabrics, that might be subject to their own command, they found most active instruments in enthusiastic partisans of indefinite innovation, and especially in literary associates, who readily joined in supporting theories which appeared to them well fitted to extend the sway of intellectual powers, and to attach power and pre-eminence to that species of talents which they conceived themselves to possess. Proceeding on the simple principle, that good was constituted by alteration, various writers, including some of considerable ingenuity, chiefly directed their attention to change, that is all the change which their literature could effect. Ingenuity, decorated nonsense and absurdity, the fine spun theories of Joel and Anne, Croft and German literature, powerfully contributed to the deviation of very inferior writers, from common sense and experience. In the literary, as in other classes, a very great number judged and acted not from original