In the discussion of good citizenship which political controversy kept alive throughout the mid-century, government writers presented personal and public life as easily reconcilable spheres in which variable behaviour was unobjectionable and moral consistency uncalled for; or they were still less idealistic, assuming self-interest to be the unexceptionable basis of any politician's activities.

James Pitt is jeering at Patriot political ideals. These prescribe that rulers respond to political corruption with the moral rectitude which they exercise in their private lives; there are to be no double standards and no expediency. Only men of integrity can be trusted to serve their country. Walpole's greatest iniquity as chief minister, according to the Patriots, was ‘the constant endeavour he has employed to corrupt the morals of men. I say thus generally, the morals; because he who abandons or betrays his country, will abandon or betray his friend.’ But to take this stand will involve a clash of interests, which itself becomes a touchstone of true patriotism. The real Patriot, the opposition journal Common Sense declared (7 October 1738), is ‘one who pursues the Good of his Country, preferable to, and independent of, all private Considerations’.