I would not be understood to mean, that public affairs deserve no care and attention at all. Would men be moderate and consistent, their claims might be admitted; at least might be examined. The _country party_ might still assert, that our constitution, though excellent, will admit of maladministration to a certain degree; and therefore, if the minister be bad, it is proper to oppose him with a _suitable_ degree of zeal. And, on the other hand, the _court party_ may be allowed, upon the supposition that the minister were good, to defend, and with some zeal too, his administration. I would only persuade men not to contend, as if they were fighting _pro aris et focis_, and change a good constitution into a bad one, by the violence of their factions. I have not here considered any thing that is personal in the present controversy. In the best civil constitutions, where every man is restrained by the most rigid laws, it is easy to discover either the good or bad intentions of a minister, and to judge whether his personal character deserve love or hatred. But such questions are of little importance to the public, and lay those who employ their pens upon them, under a just suspicion either of malevolence or of flattery.[5] [1] For forms of government let fools contest, Whate'er is best administered is best. ESSAY ON MAN, Book 3. [2] An equal difference of a contrary kind may be found in comparing the reigns of _Elizabeth_ and _James_, at least with regard to foreign affairs.