Areopagiticus (33-36)

for they had no fear that they might suffer one of two things—that they might lose their whole investment or recover, after much trouble, only a mere fraction of their venture; on the contrary, they felt as secure about the money which was lent out as about that which was stored in their own coffers. For they saw that in cases of contract the judges were not in the habit of indulging their sense of equity[*] but were strictly faithful to the laws;

and that they did not in trying others seek to make it safe for themselves to disobey the law,[*] but were indeed more severe on defaulters than were the injured themselves, since they believed that those who break down confidence in contracts do a greater injury to the poor than to the rich; for if the rich were to stop lending, they would be deprived of only a slight revenue, whereas if the poor should lack the help of their supporters they would be reduced to desperate straits.

And so because of this confidence no one tried to conceal his wealth[*] nor hesitated to lend it out, but, on the contrary, the wealthy were better pleased to see men borrowing money than paying it back; for they thus experienced the double satisfaction—which should appeal to all right-minded men—of helping their fellow-citizens and at the same time making their own property productive for themselves. In fine, the result of their dealing honorably with each other was that the ownership of property was secured to those to whom it rightfully belonged, while the enjoyment of property was shared by all the citizens who needed it.

But perhaps some might object to what I have said on the ground that I praise the conditions of life as they were in those days, but neglect to explain the reasons why our forefathers managed so well both in their relations with each other and in their government of the state. Well, I have already touched upon that question,[*] but in spite of that I shall now try to discuss it even more fully and more clearly.