the wonderful spirit of toleration breathed forth in "Utopia," which lifted him high above the finest thinkers of his age, faded away, and he became a persecutor of heretics.

I know it has been argued that he merely permitted the execution of the law; while on the other hand Froude goes, I think, to the opposite extreme in representing More in darker colors than the facts warrant. This historian claims that for some time before the fall of Wolsey the persecution of heretics had become less and less rigorous, but with the accession of More to the chancellorship, the fires of Smithfield were again lighted. From official documents of the time it appears evident that persecutions continued during the brief period in which he served as lord chancellor. And we know enough of the courage and fidelity to convictions of More to be sure that he would not have remained a day in the high office to which he had been appointed had the king insisted on the destruction of heretics when More felt that such a course was criminal and wrong. The man who had defeated the demand of Henry VII; who had at a later day, when speaker of the House, defied Cardinal Wolsey; the man who preferred the block to taking the oath under the Supremacy Act, was not the man to allow men to be punished for heresy under his rule and remain silent if such punishment ran contrary to his convictions of right. And yet he doubtless had his misgivings. His prophetic soul cast a sombre shadow over the future, for on one occasion when William Roper congratulated Sir Thomas More on "the happy estate of the realm that had so Catholic a prince that no heretic durst show his face," the philosopher replied, "I pray God that some of us, as high as we seem to sit upon the mountains, treading heretics under our feet like ants, live not the day that we gladly would wish to be at league with them to let them have their churches quietly to themselves, so that they would be content to let us have ours quietly to ourselves."

It would have been far better for the reputation of Sir Thomas More had he steadfastly refused to become lord chancellor of the realm, for during this period he placed an indelible blot upon a reputation which otherwise was fairer than that of any other great man of his age, and it is doubly sad when we remember that he himself had called the church, the state, and the individual conscience to judgment for intolerance in "Utopia." I can conceive of few sadder spectacles than that presented by a lofty genius, like More, who, after ascending the mountains of the ideal and there receiv

ing the inspiration which belongs to the dawn of true civilization, so far forgets the fine, high truth he has enunciated as to turn his back upon it and allow himself to become a persecutor of those who differ from him.

But while not ignoring this blot on the otherwise fair fame of Sir Thomas More, let us not forget that he lived in an age when the Inquisition of Spain, having received the authorization and benediction of the church, was in active operation. Ferdinand and Isabella, whose reign was so indelibly stained with persecution and murder of Jews, Moors, and heretics, had each been designated "The Catholic," as a title of special favor. On every hand it was argued that the heretics would be burned forever and ever in a lake of fire and brimstone; that if a heretic was allowed to go at large he would soon poison the souls of others. It was felt that the man who, having a plague, went forth sowing death, was less dangerous than the man who sowed the seeds of heresy, which it was affirmed were the seeds of eternal death. More had always cherished a passionate love for the Roman Church. It never seemed to occur to him seriously to question the authority of the pope. And had not the church and that pope sanctioned persecutions? Had not John Huss long before been burned to death? and he was only one of many. Moreover, the spirit of the age favored persecution; it was a savage period; human life was very cheap. Thieves were hanged by the score in England. The blood of the Hundred Years' War between France and England left its impress on the brain of this century. The dark shadows of departing mediævalism were still visible, while already in the south loomed the formidable spectre of the coming half-century of religious persecution, which should prove such an age of human slaughter and fiendish torture as Europe had never known. Thus while we deplore the fact that More permitted persecution, we must not judge him by the standards of our time. nor must we forget the fact that More's brain was sensitive to the dominant thought-vibrations of the hour, as well as the positive convictions of those in whom he placed confidence.

It was during this brief and sunless period when he was lord chancellor of England that the turn of the tide of his worldly fortunes set in. The king vainly endeavored to win him to his way of viewing the proposed divorce. Sir Thomas More saw in it the severing of the crown from the Church of Rome, and held steadfastly to his convictions which were opposed to such a step. At length rather than

consent to the divorce he resigned his position at the court. He went from office a very poor man, as he had steadfastly refused all proffered assistance and had spurned the princely bribes which were offered him.

In 1534 the Act of Supremacy was passed and More was summoned to take the oath. The king was very loth to destroy his one-time friend; he made many overtures, and assured More of his love for him. Later he threatened; both plans were alike unavailing. Had More been willing to consent to a modified oath, he would probably have escaped the block, but the philosopher ever placed loyalty to conviction of right above life; he was accordingly arrested and at length was beheaded. His tragic death raised him to the peerage of martyrs.

The domestic life of Sir Thomas More was singularly beautiful. His home has been termed a miniature Utopia. He possessed a gay and buoyant spirit and carried sunshine instead of fear to his friends. His political career, if we except his actions when religious prejudice clouded his reason and dulled his naturally keen sense of justice, evinced statesmanship of a high order. His views on social problems were in many instances hundreds of years in advance of his day, while his genuine sympathy for the poor and oppressed led him dauntlessly to champion their cause, where a time-server would have remained silent. He was a statesman unsullied by the demagogism of the politician. He was an apostle of culture, and in his writings embodied the best impulses of the new learning in a larger way than did any other scholar of his time. He was a prophet of a true civilization, and had his soul remained upon the mountain, above the baleful psychic waves which beat around his prejudices and played upon his fear, More's life, as well as his writings, would have proved an unalloyed inspiration to the generations who came after him. Yet, though like Seneca, whom in very many respects More resembled, he sometimes fell far short of his high ideals, when judged in the light of his age and environment, he stands forth one of the noblest figures of his time, and in his "Utopia" he reveals the imagination of a true genius, the wisdom and justice of a sage, and the love of a civilized man.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.

A SKETCH WRITTEN FOR A PURPOSE.

BY JOHN DAVIS.

CHAPTER IV.

Failure of Napoleon's Financial System Success of the English System.

I now call attention to an incisive discussion of the subject of taxation by Napoleon. Writing from Fontainebleau to his brother Joseph, king of Naples, Oct. 21, 1807 (Conf. Cor. p. 276), he said:

My Brother: I see by your letter of the 3d of October that your kingdom, taking one month with another, gives you 900,000 ducats, which make 4,410,000 francs; that is to say, nearly fifty-three million francs a year. This is very little. The kingdom of Italy yields me 122,000,000. I should like to have a statistical return of your kingdom to make me well acquainted with its extent, population, and taxation. It seems to me that your kingdom ought to yield at least a hundred million.

Here is a letter written by Napoleon to Joseph when in Spain, dated Dec. 12, 1808:

Send agents into the provinces to seize the funds in every town and village in that part of Cuenca, La Mancha, Castile, Segovia, and Talavera de la Reyna, into which we have entered. There is money everywhere.

Again, six days later, Napoleon wrote to Joseph very urgently on the same subject:

I can find only thirteen million in the public exchequer, and eleven million in the caisse consolidation and others, which make altogether twenty-four million, and, with the eight that you brought, thirty-two million. You must make use of them either through the capitalists in Madrid or by other means. It is for the minister of finance to find out the way. Here is already a fortnight passed, and these moments are the most precious, as force may now be employed. You should therefore procure about thirty million reals in specie without losing a minute.

Napoleon wanted money, and he wanted it quickly, while "force could be employed." The fact is, his policy was an absolute failure from the beginning, except when force could

be used. And even that was not sufficient, as already stated unless he invaded neutral or friendly nations, where he could tax and rob both friends and enemies. This proposition was proved and illustrated by the invasion of Spain, where the people were less friendly than in other parts of western Europe. After the first experiences there, it was impossible to prevent the war from being, in part, a burden on the French treasury. Napoleon's letters on the subject state the case very fully. Writing to General Berthier in Spain, he says:

Paris, Jan. 28, 1810. Let the king of Spain know that my finances are getting into disorder; that I cannot meet the enormous cost of Spain; that it is become absolutely necessary that the funds required to keep up the artillery, the engineers, the administration, the hospitals, surgeons, and administrators of every description, should be furnished by Spain, as well as half the pay of the army. All that

I can do is to give two millions a month towards its pay. As matters grew more desperate Napoleon wrote again to Berthier on Feb. 8:

I can no longer stand the enormous expenses of my army in Spain. In future I shall be able to send only two millions a month to pay the troops that surround Madrid, and which form the nucleus of the army. . . . Write to the general commanding in Aragon that he is to employ the revenue of the province, and, if necessary, even levy extraordinary contributions for the pay and support of his army.. Write to Generals Thiebault, Bonnet, and Kellerman, and to the Duke of Elchingen, . . . that they must not trust to the French treasury, which is exhausted by the immense sums which it is obliged to send; that Spain swallows up a prodigious amount of specie, and thus impoverishes France.

July 14, 1810, General Berthier wrote to Joseph as follows:

The emperor, sire, is deeply grieved to hear that the army which is laying siege to Cadiz is in a state of complete destitution; that their pay is nine months in arrears. This state of things may be productive of serious misfortune.

That is the opinion of the emperor respecting the war in Spain, where, he says, "to discipline and pay Spanish troops is to discipline and pay one's enemies." It is thus seen that, where the people are united, war cannot be made to support war, on the Napoleonic plan.

May 29, 1811, Napoleon writes from Havre to General Berthier in Spain:

Express my perfect satisfaction to Gen. Suchet, and let him know that I have granted all the promotions for which he asked. Reiterate to him the order to levy a contribution of several millions upon Lerida, in order to obtain food, pay, and clothing for his army. Tell him that the war in Spain makes such an increase of forces necessary that I am no longer able to send money thither; that war must support war.