nals themselves; the nepotes obtained money for selling justice, or what is perhaps most curious and strikes a professional politician as a choice rarity, as the naturalist is interested by some peculiar monstrosity, the "cardinal nepote" gave (and of course sold) "Non Graveturs,' which were immunities against all future procedures by way of justice, which amounted to more than an anticipating pardon of a general kind, as the English kings formerly gave them in cases of impeachment. (2) Lorenzo de Medici writes to Pope Innocent VIII., that other popes had not waited so long in bestowing property upon their family, and that should he hesitate longer, other reasons would be suspected. "Zeal and duty," he continues, "oblige me to remind your holiness that no man is immortal; that a pope signifies so much as he chooses to signify; his office cannot be made hereditary; only the honor and benefices which he bestows upon his family he can call his own." (3) The very theory followed by some prime ministers! Washington, in a letter, dated February 20, 1797, to John Adams, when president, expresses his hope that promotion will not be withheld from Mr. John Q. Adams, "because he is your son." (4) Equally striking are letters written by that pure and single-hearted man, when president, to relatives who solicited offices. (5) It is universally considered odious to see the relatives of a minister, distant or near, like so many birds feasting upon the carcass of the public revenue, and mere decency ought to prevent an undue favor toward relations (6); though it is true on the other hand it would look much like political prudery if relationship should actually impede. It is advisable on the score of mere prudence that a high officer should never appoint a near

relative to another high office near him, for the public feel insecure and naturally uneasy at it. Very many constitutions prohibit such appointments. Brothers and sons of the doge of Venice were excluded from high appointments. The constitution of Geneva prohibits more than two persons of the same name and family from sitting in the council of state, composed of twenty-four members, and more than five individuals of the same name and family in the representative council, composed of two hundred and seventy-four members. (7) In so small a state, where long intermarriage produces powerful family affiliations, this may be a serviceable law, but since the powerful agency of the public press has become a vital political agent, such matters are in most cases better left to public opinion, until it should be found insufficient. Besides laws of this sort, do rarely actually prevent the evil, if there is a disposition to engender it, except that it is well enough thus decidedly to express by a law the opinion which society entertains of the subject.

(1) I believe that papal nepotism, in its various historical phases, has nowhere so thoroughly and amply been represented as in the latter volumes of Ranke, the Popes, their Church and State, a work which contains many entirely new materials. See also the remarks of Macchiavelli on this subject in the first book of his History of Florence. That not only nephews were promoted by this nepotism, but under the name of nepots also, the natural sons of popes, as for instance under Alexander VI. is a well known fact.

(2) Under Urban VIII. for instance. See Ranke as above, vol. iii, (also vol. iv of Princes and Nations of Southern Europe,) p. 442, extract from MS. by Cardinal Cecchini.

(3) In Fabroni Vita Laurentii, ii, 390.

(4) This letter happens to be preserved in a pamphlet entitled Correspondence between the Hon. John Adams and William Cun

ningham, Boston, 1823, published by the son of the latter. Washington adds that if he were now to be brought into the diplomatic line he would not disapprove of the caution, hinted at in Mr. Adams's letter, "upon the principle which has regulated my own. conduct," but he says that the case differs. The question is only promotion of a valuable public servant.

(5) Washington's Writings; such letters as that to Bushrod Washington, New York, July 27, 1789, to Benjamin Lincoln, Mount Vernon, March 11, 1789. Mr. Sparks gives part of a letter in a note to page 478, vol. ix, which contains the following passage: Among all these anxieties, I will not conceal from you, I anticipated none greater, than those that were likely to be produced by applications for appointments to the different offices, which would be created under the new government. Nor will I conceal that my apprehensions have already been but too well justified. Scarcely a day passes, in which applications of one kind or another do not arrive; insomuch that, had I not early adopted some general principles, I should before this time have been wholly occupied in this business. As it is, I have found the number of answers, which I have been necessitated to give in my own hand, an almost insupportable burden to me.

"The points in which all these answers have agreed in substance are, that, should it be my lot to go again into public office, I would go without being under any possible engagements of any nature whatsoever; that, so far as I knew my own heart, I would not be in the remotest degree influenced, in making nominations, by motives arising from the ties of family or blood; and that, on the other hand, three things, in my opinion, ought principally to be regarded, namely, the fitness of characters to fill offices, the comparative claims from the former merits and sufferings in service of the different candidates, and the distribution of appointments in as equal a proportion as might be to persons belonging to the different States in the Union."

(6) Earl Grey, universally esteemed, even by the opposition, probably suffered no severer attacks than those founded upon the reproach that he provided too anxiously for his extensive family relations. It will be remembered that it was favoritism and nepotism which furnished Junius with the materials for some of his most caustic sarcasms.

(7) Const. du Canton de Genéve, tit. iv, 89, and tit. iii, 42.

CHAPTER V.

Gratitude fully discussed.—Ingratitude.-Excess of Gratitude aids Usurpers.→ Cæsar, Napoleon.-Distinction between Gratitude and Popularity.-Popularity. Sudden and Passing Popularity; Lasting Popularity.-We have no Right to seek Popularity, but must suffer it to seek us.—Power of spontaneous Popularity; peculiar Power of spontaneously returned Popularity.— Slavery of Popularity-Danger of Popularity in Free Countries, to the Individual-Crowds to receive distinguished Men.-Great Danger of Personal Popularity for Liberty.-Pericles.-Demagogues.--Athenian Demagoguism.-Monuments.-The Duty of Attention.-Observation of Primary Agents and Elements-Truth and Justice connected with it.-Obligation to study the History of our Country, its Institutions and their Classical Periods. It is necessary in modern Times to read Newspapers.

XLVI. INGRATITUDE has at all times been held one of the worst vices; it proceeds from a meanness of soul and annihilates one of the indispensable and most genial ties among men. To requite good with evil, or to remain untouched by the good conferred upon us, shows a callous heart, and of whatever changes the human heart is capable, the change from meanness or callousness to nobleness or warmth is the rarest of all, because a whole deep-rooted disposition and turn of feeling and thought is to be changed, which can be effected by a long training only; but this requires in the commencement a degree of nobleness of purpose. Gratitude, in all its manifestations, toward the living and the dead, who directly or indirectly conferred good upon us, and though it be in no other way than by leaving us an encouraging, cheering or inspiring example, ought to be

cultivated from the earliest period in education. Public ingratitude, wanton disregard of the best men, and the best exertions and purest sacrifices, is no less vicious and injurious to public welfare, than private ingratitude is its own sphere. It proceeds from sordidness and promotes it. Noble souls find a pleasure and deep enjoyment in warmly acknowledging real benefits and genuine kindness, and in reverencing what is good and great; it is the little-minded and narrow-hearted, or the evil-disposed who are troubled and haunted by fretting jealousy, and who see in every greatness of action, or elevation of thought, and their well-earned acknowledgment a reflection on themselves and danger to the public. They, judging from their own selfishness, believe that no greatness can exist without injury to common liberty, and have at times even publicly proclaimed the "danger of talent," thus becoming rebels against God's own order of things, and the fairest works of his hands; but "there is a congeniality between vast powers of thought and dignity of purpose. None are so capable of sacrificing themselves as those who have most to sacrifice, who, in offering themselves make the greatest offerings to humanity." (1) The wicked and the littleminded are ever leagued against grateful reverence of high-minded patriotism; and he that cannot be grateful or feel esteem, deserves neither love nor esteem. His soul is void of some of the best impulses.

Why do we love liberty? Why does mankind eternally struggle for it? If liberty necessarily required the sacrifice of the noblest traits and imprints of humanity, if the sameness of mediocrity were its condition, it ought to be shunned as the most unfortunate state in which society can be placed. We love liberty, we