Chapter V: Part 5

III. So far is the common conjecture, that the invention of gun-powder has increased the mortality of mankind, from being true, that on the contrary, it has lessened it. It is a notorious fact, established upon the faith of all antient and modern histories, that when they only used what are commonly called white arms in war, the battles were much more bloody than they are at present. It was very rare then, that the dispute was decided, when the contest lay between troops that were nearly equal in valour and discipline, till one of the parties were almost half destroyed; but at present, instead of that, the death of a tenth part, is generally sufficient to determine the victory in favour of the conquering side. I confess, that this in some measure may be owing to the superior perfection the art of war is arrived at now, compared with what it was formerly. I say in some measure, because I apprehend the greatest difference, should be imputed to the different way of fighting. In former days, when they fought principally with swords, or cutting and thrusting weapons, the troops could not engage, without being intimately mixed one with another. This mixing, conduced to irritate men’s minds, and caused a greater difficulty in discerning the advantages one army had gained, and the disadvantages the other laboured under: it also created great confusion, and made it difficult for them to attend to or obey orders; and likewise made it very hard to withdraw the vanquished out of the reach of the conquerors; all which causes, concurred to make battles very obstinate and bloody. Now-a-days, it is sometimes sufficient to decide the contest, if one of the parties before their coming very near each other, is greatly disordered by the fire of their adversaries; in which case, if the general upon weighing the circumstances, concludes he cannot repair the mischief, he orders a retreat.

IV. In the sieges of fortified towns, this difference of bloodshed is still greater; for the reduction of places, is become much more easy by the invention of gun-powder, and the slaughter attending reducing them greatly less, than it was before the use of it. The siege of Troy, which we are told lasted ten years, would probably not have continued two months, if they had then known the use of cannon and mortars; by so much the more havoc these implements make of the stone walls, by so much the less, is the havoc made of men’s lives. Bombs and cannon balls, are more terrifying than destructive. All hear their noise, and but few perish by their flash. Frequently, the surprize and panic they occasion, redeem people from the mischief of them, because the garrison, by being intimidated before they are considerably wasted, entertain thoughts of surrendering; by which means, an infinite number of deaths, both on the part of the besieged, and the besiegers, are prevented.

V. It has not only been observed, that there has been a saving of men and time in sieges, since they have introduced carrying them on by artillery; but it has also been remarked, that in proportion as the fire of them has been augmented, the destruction of the human race has been lessened. Upon this experience, and with a view of preventing the effusion of blood, Louis the fourteenth during his reign, either from his own feelings, or by the advice of his best officers, directed, that they should increase the expence of gun-powder in sieges. And Spain once imitated this practice very happily, and with great success; for having observed that the siege of the town of Namur in 1695, on account of the smallness of their fire, cost them much time, and a great number of men, before they could reduce the place; therefore when they came to besiege the citadel, they for the space of seven days, kept an incessant fire against it, with a hundred and forty cannon, and a hundred mortars and royals; by which means, they obliged it to surrender in much less time than they spent in besieging the town, and when the garrison consisted of eight thousand good troops able to do duty, exclusive of sick and wounded. It is a fact, that this good purpose was attained upon that occasion, and would no doubt be attained upon others of the same sort, not only on account of the terror, which such a fire impresses the besieged with, but because also, the continual fatigue it exposes them to, exhausts their spirits, and does not permit them, either to eat or sleep in safety, and obliges them to exert an almost continual bodily labour, in repairing the breaches, and clearing the ditches of the rubbish that is beat down into them, and also in transporting materials to make breastworks at the places attacked, together with ammunition and other things. Where the garrison is not composed of veterans, the terror occasioned by the noise of so many cannon and mortars, joined to the tumbling of the edifices, is sufficient to intimidate, and frighten them into a surrender. And the same thing will happen, when there are a great number of inhabitants shut up in a place, although the garrison should be a veteran one; as we are informed by that great master in the art of war, the Marquis de Santa Cruz de Mercenado, in the fifth book of his Military Reflexions.

VI. It being then certain, that gun-powder has prevented the loss of a great many lives in war, the mischief that has happened from it is very light, compared to this great advantage, nor is the evil of its affording people the means of putting one another to death, to revenge private grudges, to be compared with this benefit; for such misfortunes do not amount to a thousandth part of the other advantages. Nor should all the deaths that happen in that way, be charged to the account of gun-powder; for the steel in most of these cases, is commonly the instrument of vengeance, and there are many of those instruments contrived very artfully, for the purpose of giving desperate wounds to people when they are off their guard. To this we may add, that rigorous laws against peoples carrying concealed pistols, may in a great measure, prevent these cruelties from being perpetrated by the means of gun-powder; so that by making a general computation, of all the good and bad resulting from gun-powder in these respects, we shall find, that for one man that is slain by it in consequence of private piques and quarrels, the lives of a thousand are saved, that would otherwise have been lost in the disputes between princes.

VII. If we consider powder with regard to the advantages we derive from it in other respects, we shall find it to be very useful and beneficial to mankind, for it assists us to kill game, to extirpate wild beasts, to smooth rugged surfaces, to blow up lime-stone, to open passages through craggy mountains, to stop the progress of fires, and is likewise useful in a thousand other instances.

VIII. From all which it may be inferred, that the inventor of gun-powder, instead of meriting the execrations that are fulminated against him, is deserving of the thanks and applause of the world. Who this inventor was, agreeable to the general opinion, may be seen in the twelfth Discourse of the fourth volume of the Theatrico-Critico[1].

PARADOX II.

_What is commonly called Clemency in Princes and Magistrates, is pernicious to the Public._

IX. Clemency, as it is explained by Moralists and Theologians, is a virtue; but as understood by the vulgar, it is a vice. This different acceptation of one and the same word, may be easily accounted-for. If we advert to the doctrine laid down by St. Thomas, we shall there find, Clemency explained as not inconsistent with severity. But I ask whether in the idea of the vulgar, these two qualities are not very different? They are clearly so; because that which is termed severe, they without the least hesitation deny can be clement. Therefore the signification which the vulgar give to the word Clemency, is different from that which is given to it by learned and wise men.

X. Severity then in the opinion of these last, is an habitual inflexibility of the mind, which will not relax in the punishment of crimes, whenever the dictates of right reason require they should be punished. Clemency also, as explained by them, is an habitual disposition to lessen the punishment of crimes, whenever the same right reason dictates that they should be lessened; _Quando oportet, et in quibus oportet_, says the angelic doctor, and it is from his doctrine that this definition is taken. It is clear, there is no opposition, but rather an agreeable harmony between these two qualities; and it is also clear, that the vulgar look upon that inflexibility of the mind in which severity consists, as diametrically opposite to clemency; and thus they call obdurate, rigorous, inexorable, and austere, all those, who possess that inflexible habit.

XI. That prince or magistrate is clement in the opinion of the vulgar, who is to be wrought upon by the intreaties of friends, the tears of the guilty, and the cries of his orphan family; and who indulges the softness of his own disposition, and is induced from these motives, to mitigate the punishments, which the law has allotted to crimes. But in reality, this is not Clemency, but injustice. It is rather a vileness, and a weakness of mind, which is cloaked under the name of Clemency. He is a protector and an encourager of wickedness, who from such considerations, and without any other motives, slackens his hand in the punishment of crimes. He is an indirect tyrant of the state, and becomes an abettor of all those evils, which are occasioned by the daring rashness of delinquents; and he is also a multiplier of them to an excessive number, by his forbearing to deter bad men from committing them by proper examples; and it is for this reason, that we said in the title of this paradox, that that which is called Clemency in princes and magistrates, is prejudicial to the public at large.

XII. Who then should be deemed truly clement? Why he who after duly weighing and considering all the particulars and circumstances of a case, is convinced by the dictates of right reason, that he ought to lessen the punishment assigned to a crime by the common law, and does lessen it in consequence of such a conviction. This is all agreeable to the doctrine of St. Thomas before quoted; and from hence it may be inferred, that the exercise of clemency can never be arbitrary, as is generally imagined. I mean, that the lessening a punishment which the law prescribes for a guilty person, can never be supposed to depend upon the mere will of a prince or magistrate. He ought only to lessen it, when he finds after maturely weighing the circumstances, that it should be lessened, for if they would not justify his doing it, he should not lessen it at all. There is no middle way. Clemency is a moderating virtue, which if exercised with excessive zeal may become vicious. I am very well aware, this is giving much less extension to the virtue of clemency than the general opinion allows to it. But that is nothing to the purpose, for this is the true and sound doctrine respecting it.

XIII. The just motives for lessening punishments in various cases, are many; for example, the antecedent merits of the convicted person, the use he may be of to the public, his known ignorance of the consequence of what he did, or his having committed the crime inadvertently; any serious inconvenience that might result to the public from his punishment; or any convenience that might be derived to the state from moderating it, &c.

XIV. That great Asturian hero, Pedro Menendez de Aviles governour of Florida, acted on various occasions, and in matters of the utmost importance, contrary to the orders that had been given him by the king. For each of these transgressions, according to the strict letter of the law, he deserved to be punished capitally. The king, and a king who was so zealous of his authority as Philip the second, pardoned them all; but not totally, for we may estimate as a partial punishment, his delaying so long to confer on him the rewards due to his signal merits, during which interval, that eminent man experienced not a few pinchings and inconveniences. The king acted clemently by proceeding in this manner; for it would have been unjust, cruel, and savage in many respects, if he had adhered to the letter of the law in punishing him. The state would have lost a most profitable subject, some signal merits would have gone unrewarded, and so ill judged a precedent, would have been productive of great disadvantages to the public, because other commanders, who might afterwards find themselves in circumstances where strictly obeying their orders would be attended with pernicious consequences, would obey them notwithstanding, for fear of the punishment. Even without the assistance of so bad a precedent, that dread, occasioned the ruin of the grand Armada, fitted out by the same king Philip for the chastisement of England.

XV. I suppose, that Peter Menendez, having always been successful when he acted contrary to his orders, conduced much to excite, if it was not the sole cause of the king’s lenity and benevolence to him. But even the plea of this merit, was of no avail to that valiant youth the son of Manlius Torquatus, who after returning home victorious and crowned with laurels, was by order of his own father put to death, for having contrary to his orders, fought with, and defeated his enemies. This was acting with improper severity, for although the offence by the strict letter of the law, should have been punished capitally, the putting him to death was savage, cruel, inhuman, and barbarous. The ardour and fire of his youth, ought to have been admitted as a plea to mitigate his fault; but there was much more room for shewing lenity to him on account of the zeal he manifested for the public good, by taking the advantage of a favourable conjuncture, which it was impossible for the Consul to foresee when he gave him his orders, and thereby, doing so eminent a service to his country. But the ferocious and sour virtue of the obdurate Manlius, neither weighed circumstances, nor attended to, or was influenced by the dictates of morality; and thus, he unjustly deprived his country of the life and services of a youth, who gave the most promising hopes of his becoming one day a great commander.

XVI. When the circumstances of a case do not afford just motives for departing from the letter of the law, there is no room for the exercise of clemency; as the departing from it in such an instance, would be injustice, and it is impossible that the same action, should be conformable to one virtue, and contrary to another, because at that rate, it might be both good and bad at one and the same time. Thus in these cases, there is no other course to take, but that of applying the punishment the law prescribes, without regarding the clamours of weak-minded people, who are capable of censuring such conduct as over-severe or harsh; for acting in this manner conduces to the public good.

XVII. Annon, the pious archbishop of Cologne, did, in the eleventh century, cause the eyes of several of his judges to be put out, for having given an unjust judgment against a poor woman; but he left one of the number with a single eye, in order that he might be able to lead the others about. I suppose that such an example, could not fail to fill the whole city with horror; but although many might exclaim against the cruelty of it, it was still just and useful, as the blinding of those few judges, might contribute to open the eyes of an infinite number of others, and cause them to look attentively, how they pronounced sentences in future.

XVIII. The case I am about to mention, is more singular still: when Count Evkembaldus the sovereign of Burdan, was in a very weak and infirm state, a complaint was preferred to him against a nephew of his, who had violated the chastity of a young lady, and upon the charge being clearly proved against him, he, as he was a zealous lover and assertor of justice, ordered him to be put to death; but those who were directed to execute this sentence, evading doing it, upon a supposition that the Count must soon die, somebody informed him of the omission; and as he saw clearly that in his present weak state, although he should repeat his orders, they would not be executed, he artfully contrived, by declaring that his indignation against the youth was appeased, and that he was disposed to forgive him, to get him brought into his sick room, where coaxing him under some pretence to approach his bed, he seized him by the collar with his left hand, and with a poignard that he held concealed in his right, stabbed him into the throat, and killed him on the spot. Many seemed scandalized with this act; but there is no reason to suppose, that it was displeasing in the eyes of God.

XIX. This inviolable integrity in the administration of justice, is no indication of obdurateness, but is rather compatible, with the greatest tenderness and compassion the human heart is susceptible of; although, where effective clemency cannot be admitted, there may be room for the introduction of the affective.

Briante Prieneus, one of the seven wise men of Greece, was observed to weep very bitterly after condemning a guilty person to death; upon which, somebody present asked him why he lamented, since it was in his own power to pardon the man; to this he answered, _You mistake, for it is by no means in my power, and therefore I weep. His life is a debt that is due to justice, and this tenderness of mine, one that I owe to nature._ It is said of Vespasian, that he frequently wept and lamented in tears, the deaths of guilty persons, whom he himself had justly condemned.

XX. To him who has a heart so delicate, that the gentleness of his disposition is apt to degenerate into weakness and debility, I will prescribe an admirable remedy, which shall comfort and strengthen his heart, and not lessen or abate its softness. This consists, in directing his attention to contemplate another object, and in making that the object of his compassion. Let us figure to ourselves a judge, at the crisis when he has just passed sentence of death on a notorious rogue, who has been guilty of many cruelties and outrages, and when he is assailed with the cries and intreaties of the convict to be merciful to him; and let us also consider him, when those intreaties are afterwards repeated with the enumeration of all those particulars, that are most likely to excite tenderness and compassion, such, as imploring him to commiserate his distressed wife and children, and to look with an eye of pity, on the miserable and afflicted state of an unhappy man, who is all contrition and repentance, and whose ignominious death, will bring disgrace and affliction on his innocent friends and relations. Upon hearing this, he may be apt to say to himself, taking away the life of a man is a terrible thing, and may perhaps revolve in his mind, all the horrors of a person leading to execution, and also those he may feel, when he is just on the point of suffering the punishment he has been condemned to by the law. These reflections may possibly stagger his constancy, and dispose him to pardon the offender.

XXI. But if he would turn the eyes of his understanding from contemplating this tragical picture, and view another, which is much more tragical, and which is drawn and depicted from the circumstances that appeared in evidence at the trial; he might there see representations of cruelty and outrage in a variety of shapes, and distress and misery of various kinds, which have been brought by the depredations of this savage fury, on numbers of innocent people, who are all then praying that justice may be done on this violator of the laws of God and man; this enemy to the peace, security, and happiness of mankind. When a judge contemplates such things, ought he not to be more affected with the cries and lamentations of these sufferers, than with the intreaties and affliction of a wretch, who has been the author of so many evils, and whose misery and distress has been brought upon himself, by his own outrages and misdeeds?

XXII. It may be replied to this, that these mischiefs can’t be remedied by the execution of the man, and that putting him to death, will be only adding a new tragedy to those already exhibited; but have patience. Although it is true, that this will not remedy the mischiefs that are past, it will deter others from committing the like offences for the future. The pardoning crimes, operates like a contagion; and the impunity of a delinquent, inspires others with boldness, and infects them with the inclination of becoming delinquents also; on the contrary, by punishing such a man, you strike terror into ill-intentioned people, and prevent the distresses of thousands; and although you can’t remedy the misfortunes of the innocent persons who have already been injured, you may prevent the like mischiefs from being done to an infinite number of others. Let a judge now weigh all these things, and then determine, whether advancing the public good, and doing justice to these injured people, ought not more to excite his compassion, than that devil in human shape who awaits the execution of his sentence; and finally, I must observe to him, that if he lets such a miscreant go unpunished, those very innocent people whom he has injured, will implore the justice of heaven against him for having pardoned so horrid a wretch.

PARADOX III.

_What is termed liberality in princes, is for the most part injurious to their subjects._

XXIII. I consider liberality, not only as a virtue, but as a most noble one, that is so much the more worthy to be treasured up in the breast of a man, by so much the more his station of life is exalted. It is certain, that although all vices are vile and base, and all virtues noble, there are vices, which in an especial manner deserve to be stigmatized with the epithet of sordid, and that there are virtues, which shine forth with a superior splendor and dignity. Among the first sort, avarice should be classed, and among the second, liberality.

XXIV. From hence it may be inferred, that avarice, which is always a vile quality, in princes, is a superlatively vile one, as this meanness of spirit, is unworthy of the elevated dignity of a throne. Vespasian was a prince of admirable endowments, he was a great warrior, politician, and magistrate, and was besides temperate, discreet, and affable; but his avarice was a dark shade, which obscured all these perfections; so that the most a person can do who reads his history, is not to abhor him, but he never can bring himself to esteem or love him. He, to increase his revenues and fill his coffers, went to the extreme length, of laying a tax on the excrements of the human body; but the matter out of which the tax arose, was not so noisome and stinking, as the tax itself.

XXV. Although, it does not follow from hence, that prodigality, which is a vice diametrically opposite to avarice, is not a great blemish in princes; for in truth, it is more blameable in them than in private people. A private prodigal, wastes his own substance; a prince, the substance of other men. A private person by his extravagance, hurts himself; a sovereign, by his, injures a whole community; so that, although the two vices are unlike in themselves, when centered in princes, they produce with respect to the public, the same effects. The avaricious prince impoverishes his people to enrich himself; and the prodigal one, impoverishes himself to enrich others. What the first heaps up, is buried; what the other amasses together, is dissipated; and by attending closely to this object, you will find, that prodigality is the most pernicious vice of the two; because what a prodigal sovereign squanders in needless largesses to enrich particular people, does not return, or if ever it does, it is very late, or it is by some rare accident, that it ever returns again to the public stock; whereas what an avaricious prince hoards up, may be serviceable in the days of his successor, and may greatly contribute to lessen the burdens of his subjects.

XXVI. But how shall we define what should be termed prodigality in princes? Why by calling all that such, which is commonly stiled liberality. The vulgar, and even those who are superior to the vulgar, allow of a large extension, to the arbitrary and voluntary expences of princes. It is commonly understood, that when a prince from caprice, or from particular affections for a subject, makes him a present, that the donation should be proportioned to the power and grandeur of the person who bestows it; but I consider the thing in quite a different light. Whatever considerable sum of the public money is expended, which is not laid out, directly or indirectly, to advance the public benefit, is injustice and profusion. That which comes out of the pockets of the public, should be expended in such things as are beneficial to the public. Would it not be most unjust providence, to apply, for the sake of indulging the caprice or ostentation of a sovereign, that which is contributed by millions of people, to enrich a particular person, who by some chance accident, in a matter that was of little importance to the community, has done something that was agreeable to, and that has gained him the favour of his prince?

XXVII. Alexander ordered his treasurer to give to the philosopher Anaxarchus, any sum of money he should desire. He requested a hundred talents; and the treasurer informed Alexander of the excessive demand of the philosopher; to which Alexander answered, _he has done very right, for he well knows that he has a friend who is both able and willing to give him that sum_; and ordered the treasurer to pay him the money immediately. Is this liberality? It is true, that it is celebrated as such in an infinite number of books; but I say, that it was no such thing, for that it should rather have been termed mad prodigality, which is the legitimate child of vain-glory; and that it was not only prodigality, but cruelty and tyranny. With those hundred talents, he might have administered to many distresses; and if a prince has superfluities, he should lay them out for such purposes. But refraining to administer to the hunger and necessities of numbers of poor people, to satiate the gluttonous cravings of an avaricious philosopher, was a glaring act of partiality, which rendered it doubtful, which of the two was the most unjust person, Anaxarchus for demanding such a sum, or Alexander for gratifying him in his demand.

XXVIII. The same Alexander, being requested by his friend Perilus to furnish him with a sum of money to portion out his daughters, ordered fifty talents to be delivered to him. To which Perilus modestly replied, that ten would be sufficient; to this Alexander answered, _that is not a matter for my consideration, for although ten talents would be as much as would answer your purpose, it would not be a present suitable to my grandeur_. I find this celebrated by many writers, as a noble and magnanimous act, and Alexander’s saying upon doing it, as a commendable and a well-pointed one; but in my opinion, the act was an act of madness, and that his saying upon doing it, was a very weak and trifling one. Does the grandeur of a prince consist in extravagances and profusions? Does it display grandeur, to take from many what is absolutely needful for them, to furnish a few others with superfluities? It does not, but rather favours of injustice, baseness, and tyranny; and they only can call such behaviour magnanimous, who have lost the use of their understanding.

XXIX. A thousand crowns in specie, were one day presented to Don Alfonso, the fifth king of Arragon of that name, and the first of Naples. A person who was standing by at the time, said, _How happy it would make me, if all that money was mine!_ To which the king answered, _Take it then, for I am desirous of making you happy._ Was this magnanimity? I know that it has been cried up as such; but I say, it rather shewed weakness of mind, and a want of proper resolution, to resist an absurd impulse of vain-glory. I suppose also, that it was from the want of thinking or reflexion, that the king was guilty of that profusion, and that he was hurried into it by his vanity, which suggested to him, that making the man a present of the money would blazon his fame, and manifest to the world, that he had both the disposition and the power to make a man happy. But I would ask him (and this is a question that might be put to all the princes in the world) whether, if it is an act of greatness to make one man happy, it is not a much superior one to make a great many so? If it is glorious in a sovereign to make an individual happy, is it not beyond comparison more glorious, to make a whole nation so? And there is no doubt but this might be done, if a prince would avoid all profusion, and regulate his conduct by a discreet œconomy; if he would curtail all superfluous expences, be a check upon the avarice of his ministers, or else deliver the administration of his affairs into the hands of none but men of integrity, who are capable of proportioning the contributions to be paid by his subjects to their abilities, and who should be careful, not to over-burthen the husbandmen and manufacturers; for these are the people, who by their labours, are the principal instruments of enriching a state, and whenever they find the weight of the taxes, squeeze out of them the greatest part of their earnings, they will leave off work, and betake themselves to an idle and vagabond life. To sum up the whole, a prince, by conforming to the precepts that are dictated by justice, religion, and prudence, and by not bestowing on any one in particular, more than his necessities demand, or than is due to his merits, will become the common father of his people; and by extending his paternal care, and dispensing his generosity with an equal and impartial hand to them all alike, will be able to make them all happy.

XXX. The royal treasury, may be compared to the ocean. It receives its pecuniary contributions from all the monies in the kingdom, as the ocean does its stock of waters from all the rivulets, fountains, and streams in the whole world. The royal treasury then, should do by the kingdom, as the ocean does by the world; that is, after permitting those waters to be exhaled in vapours, return the same stock in refreshing rains, to fertilize the earth. It would argue a great defect in the sovereign providence, as the stock of the ocean is supplied by all the waters of the world, if he was only to permit a return of them, to fertilize here and there a district, in consequence of which, all the rest would become barren. Just so, would it be an intolerable absurdity in human government, to apply the money of the public treasury, to which the whole kingdom has contributed, in prodigal donations to enrich a few individuals, and by with-holding it from all the rest, leaving them in distress and misery.

XXXI. The reigning emperor of China at the beginning of this century, was with respect to the matter we are treating of, one of the greatest examples, that ever has, or perhaps ever will be exhibited to the world. I rely on the authority of Father Contanein for the truth of this assertion, and on the account he gives of this emperor in his letters, which are dated at Canton the latter end of the year 1725, and which are copied into the 18th volume of edifying and curious letters of foreign missionaries; but I only at present, have before me an extract from them, which is inserted in the second volume of the Memoirs of Trevoux of the year 1728.

XXXII. That prince, laboured incessantly to promote the good of his subjects. The object absorbed all his thoughts, and occupied his whole attention. Every day of the year, and all hours of the day, were days and hours of giving audience and expediting business; and he scarce devoted any to amusement or recreation. To provide for the conveniences of his own person, he used the riches of his treasury with great moderation; but he expended them with a truly royal magnificence, when he administered to the necessities of his people. He procured punctual information, of the state and condition of all his provinces, and took care to know, which of them was opulent, and which indigent; this he did, to the end, that he might succour with the greater ease, such of them as were in distress. If any town had been desolated, either by an earthquake or a conflagration, if any province had suffered by an inundation, or by any adverse accidents, had been prevented from yielding their usual produce, or if by any other chain of accidents, a province happened to be impoverished, he immediately remitted large sums, to repair their buildings, and to relieve their poor. All his subjects experienced to flow from his bowels, a balsam of tenderness, compassion, and paternal love, which healed all their calamities, and relieved all their distresses.

XXXIII. In the same year, 1725, some provinces suffered greatly from excessive rains, and the emperor took measures to relieve the distresses that had been occasioned by them, which, in order to do more effectually, he sent instructions written in his own hand, to the principal men and mandarines of all his empire, which began thus; _This summer, extraordinary and uncommon quantities of rain have fallen, and the provinces of Pekin, Chantong, and Honan, have been inundated by them. I feel much for the distresses of my people who inhabit those provinces; and have it much at heart to relieve them. Their afflictions are continually present to my imagination both night and day, nor can I enjoy sound sleep, or tranquillity of mind, while I know that my subjects suffer; and as it is absolutely necessary to send immediate relief to those vast numbers of poor distressed people, I command you great men and magistrates of my empire, to choose some trusty and able persons, such as are capable of executing my instructions, and who prefer the public good to their own private interests; and dispatch them to the three before-named provinces, to distribute to the afflicted inhabitants of them, the tokens of my benevolence and compassion. Let them scrutinize the most obscure and remote corners, to find out all the poor and distressed, to the end, that no one may remain without proper succour and relief. I know that it has sometimes happened, that in the making these sort of distributions, acts of injustice and partiality have been committed; but I will take care that the conduct of those you send shall be watched, and do you look to it also._

XXXIV. There is another testimony in the before recited letter, which does honour, not only to the generosity and benevolence of this prince, but to his heroic disinterestedness also. It having been customary with him for a great many years, to release a certain province from paying a part of their annual tribute; which he did because he thought it was just and necessary. The inhabitants, to express their gratitude for this kindness and generosity to them, meditated erecting some monuments to his honour, and had actually begun the work, which the governor of the province informed him of. To which information of the governor’s, the emperor gave the following answer: _What you acquaint me with, is totally disagreeable to me, and what I by no means approve. When I conceded this grace to the inhabitants of the province you preside over, I had no other motive or view in doing it, than that of acting justly by, and making all my subjects happy alike; but had no intention of procuring to myself a vain honour. Such expences are superfluous and unnecessary, and can never be of any use or benefit to me; and as I have sent proclamations through all my empire, exhorting my people to practise frugality and œconomy, I wonder how they could presume to think of running into these needless and mad expences, or how you could permit them to do it: it is also to be apprehended, that the inferior officers who are generally the collectors of money for these purposes, may be tempted to put part of it into their own pockets. Prohibit therefore immediately, the proceeding any further in this matter, and with respect to the edifice and monument of stone, I forbid the erecting of it; and I repeat again, that when I do these acts of grace and favour, it is not with a view of acquiring a vain reputation, but because I think it just and necessary; and to the end, that every one may be enabled to do his duty in society, and that the tranquillity and happiness of my subjects in general may be established on a solid foundation._

XXXV. All the conduct of this prince was of the same tenor. He with a most sagacious penetration, attended to the proceedings and conduct of all the mandarines; and gave them instructions, that they should apprize him of all that occurred to them, which might conduce to promote good government. He made many regulations, that were just and wise; he established premiums for the husbandmen, who had distinguished themselves by their industry, and the improvements they had made in agriculture; and for the manufacturers and mechanics, who had signalized themselves by their diligence and ingenuity; he made provision for the widows of virtuous citizens, and settled rewards that were to be paid to such children, as distinguished themselves by their filial care of, and tenderness to their aged parents, &c. and is this Prince who was so perfect in his morals, and so great a pattern of policy, the same man, who proscribed Christianity throughout all his dominions? I fear we must be obliged to answer in the affirmative, and to contemplate with astonishment, the inscrutable secrets of the divine Providence; and to exclaim, _Oh! how incomprehensible are God’s judgments, and how untraceable are his ways!_ But the blindness of this emperor in matters of religion, should not preclude our recommending him as a signal pattern, of that sort of œconomy and liberality which should be practised by princes.

XXXVI. I have said of the _œconomy and liberality_, for both these virtues, are found to be perfectly compatible with each other, and to be admirably reconciled together in the practice of that prince. The true and proper effect, and essential operation of liberality, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, consists, in proportioning our affection for money in such a manner, that our excessive love of it shall never obstruct our laying it out for such purposes, as are just and laudable. Thus the epithet of liberal, does not belong to him who expends it to indulge his whim or humour, or from motives of ostentation, or to gratify his affection for some particular people, he is desirous of enriching; for all this is prodigality: but he deserves to be called liberal, who applies money to promote and accomplish virtuous ends, and who is always ready to part with it, when it may be made conducive to promote such purposes. There is field enough within these limits, for the exercise of the virtue of liberality. He is liberal, who succours the poor, rewards the deserving, supports by generous donations men of ability, and who constructs useful public edifices, and, in general, all money that is laid out for the benefit of the public, may be said to be expended on objects of liberality, which liberality, if judiciously extended, may be deserving of the epithet of magnificence. These two last virtues are distinguishable from each other, by the first being limited not to exceed the bounds of moderation: and the other being permitted to extend to the expending vast sums, provided the money is laid out from laudable motives, and on objects, that are really conducive to the public utility. Thus Louis the Fourteenth did an act of magnificence, in building the Hospital of Invalids at Paris, and did a much superior one, by constructing the canal, that makes a navigable communication between Languedoc and Bourdeaux; because the great expences that attended executing these works, were incurred to promote the public good, and actually were great advantages to the public at large; but the palaces that were built by Nero and Caligula, which occupied as much ground as two large towns might have stood on, do not deserve to be called works of magnificence; because the vast sums that were laid out in constructing them, were by no means expended to promote the public good, but only to gratify the ostentatious vanity of two profuse men. The emperor Adrian was magnificent, by forgiving at once, the payment of all that was owing to him for the sixteen preceding years, by Rome, Italy, and all the imperial provinces; but Alfonso the Twelfth of Castile was prodigal (provided the story that is told of him, and circulated in so many books respecting this matter is true) in expending a vast sum of money, for the redemption of Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople; as the first case concerned the whole Roman empire; and Spain was not at all interested in the last.

XXXVII. Finally, A prince may exercise not only his liberality, but his magnificence also, by bestowing great donations, upon here and there an individual of signal and superior merit, (but I would be understood to mean such merit as has been beneficial to the state) because in doing this, his attention may be supposed, as not confined to rewarding the virtue of a single man; but to the exciting the emulation of many. And considered in this light, what Spain gave to Colon, did not exceed the bounds of justice and moderation; what she gave to Cortez was little; and what she gave to the great Captain next to nothing. When a prince or nation should exercise magnificence, if the donation they bestow is not equal to the merit of the person it is conferred on, or the dignity of the party who confers it, it can never deserve to be termed liberality, for there is no middle way in these cases, and if the gift does not amount high enough to be deserving of the epithet of magnificence, it declines to the other extreme, and sinks into parsimony.

PARADOX IV.

_There is more Objection made to promoting People to important Employments on account of their Youth, than there ought to be._

XXXVIII. As in the use of their potential or intellectual faculties, some give early tokens of dulness or perverseness, and others display bright tokens of commendable and useful talents; which render it probable, that the state would prevent great mischiefs by the early chastisements of the first, and that it would reap great benefits by the timely favouring and encouraging the virtuous bodings of the second; as there are young men, who in prudence and understanding excell those who are much further advanced in years. If such, in the prime of their lives, were promoted to fill posts of importance, the state would for a long time, reap the benefit of their good administration: whereas, by deferring their advancement till they grow old, this benefit is but of short duration. The most learned and penetrating society of Jesuits, at the age of thirty-eight, raised to the high post of Prepositor-general of their Order, Father Claudius Acquaviva. Who can entertain a doubt, but that in so extensive a society, there were many men further advanced in life, possessed of all the requisites for the well-discharging the duties of such an office? But notwithstanding this, Father Acquaviva, at this age, was preferred to all the others, to fill this important station; this was done, either because he possessed the requisite qualities for discharging the duties of the office in a more eminent degree than the others, or because, although they might be equal to him in talents, there was a probability of their enjoying the fruits of his excellent government for a much longer time, than they were likely to enjoy the benefit of the services of those who were further advanced in life; in which expectation it turned out afterwards that they were not disappointed. The famous Servita Fray Pablo Sarpi was made Provincial of his Religion, at the age of twenty-seven. The portentous talents of that young man, gave just reason for their electing him, and their judgment in doing so, was afterwards confirmed by the sentiments of the republic; who appointed him, contrary to their ordinary practice, at about the same period his own society conferred this honour on him, their Counsellor. It is true, that this extraordinary favour of the republic, was very injurious to the religious character of Father Sarpi, for he engaged with such warmth in defence of the state, against the pretensions of the Apostolic See, that only in his habit of a friar, he preserved the appearance of being a Catholic.

XXXIX. He who at thirty, has the discretion that people commonly have at fifty, when he arrives at the age of forty, will have a discretion, much superior to that of the bulk of mankind. And this exceeding will be greater still, if from the age of thirty, he begins to exercise his talents in public business, as he will go on improving them more and more every day by his practice. Why then should not the state encourage the cultivation of a soil, which is capable of producing so much for their service? Or why should they lose any part of the copious fruit, that may be produced from such a stock?

XL. To this reasoning I shall add, that when there is an equality of intellectual talents, the middle age should be preferred to the more advanced, for that is the time, in which the faculties of both body and mind are in their full vigour, which are things of great importance, in the good administration or execution of public business. What might be gained by the experience of a man who has had a great deal of practice; if he happens only to begin to act at a time of life when his faculties are on the decline, may be overbalanced by the loss that would be sustained by the languid execution of his designs. I am persuaded that the miscarriages of Cyrus, Pompey, and other famous warriors in their advanced state of life, who had always been conquerors in the days of their youth and vigour, was owing to no other cause but this; and am of opinion, that they attributed to a falling-off of fortune, what only resulted from a decadence of their robustness, and the activity of their minds.

XLI. It may perhaps be objected to what I have been advancing, that it is in but here and there a rare instance, that this doctrine of mine will apply, for that it is very uncommon to meet in an early time of life, with a man of equal ability, to one who is more advanced in years; and that if I only mean to recommend, that in these rare instances, they shall have the preference given them, I have been beating my brains to little purpose; for that this is already an established practice; and there is no man who has observed the world with any attention, who is not convinced, that we have had here and there an instance, of a young man being preferred to one more advanced in years?

XLII. But to this, I reply in the first place, that admitting, in these particular cases, what is just and proper has been done, it does not follow from thence, that the doctrine we have been laying down is useless; for although our arguments on this head may be unnecessary as an instruction to those who have the dispensation of employments, they may be of use by way of reproof or correction, to grumblers and complainers. A young man scarce ever attains any honour or preferment, but a thousand old unprofitable ones murmur at it, and not only a thousand old ones who are useless, but the majority of the young ones also; who by being of about the same standing in life, are stimulated to shew resentment, by the fire of emulation.

XLIII. We shall answer secondly, that a young man’s excelling old ones in understanding and judgment, is nothing near so uncommon as is generally imagined, but is rather a thing which we experience very frequently. There is scarce a community consisting of twenty or thirty individuals, where we do not see a particular young man, better informed, and more capable than many of the old ones. This proceeds, from the temperaments of men having generally a greater effect on the faculties of their minds, than their ages. The exceeding that a man experiences in himself in this respect at fifty years of age, and at thirty-five, is seldom very considerable, and will rarely be perceptible, if he has not passed the last fifteen years, from a life of much indolence, to one of much application. On the contrary, the exceeding there is between some men and others on account of their different temperaments and geniuses, is enormous. We every day see those, who from their aptness at acquiring every science and faculty, will become adepts in them, in a quarter part of the time, that others are obliged to employ in hard study to attain them.

XLIV. From this great difference in the temperaments and genius of individuals, spring those prodigious advances of some young men in literary attainments, which are frequently not equalled, by those who have studied till eighty. Such for example as John Pico de Mirandola, the Scotch man Jacob Creighton, the Spaniard Fernando de Cordoba, Gaspar Scioppius, Hugo Grotius, Spanolito who is now the wonder of Paris, and others. We might add to these examples many more, which are not so well known, but which are not less extraordinary; but we shall content ourselves with pointing out two, that are the most striking ones. The first is Gustavus de Helmfeld, the son of a Swedish Senator, who at ten years of age, could speak twelve Languages, the Swedish, the Muscovite, the Polish, the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the German, the Flemish, the English, the Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew; he besides had a knowledge of philosophy, and a tincture of that of theology, and also understood some parts of the mathematics.