I cannot refrain from saying here a word to those who counsel Sovereigns to (180) chase away faithful subjects who have no other failing nor commit no other crime but that of having a different opinion from their Prince on religious matters. I only ask them why they do not advise ways that are natural and faithful to universal law, by removing their error through doctrinal and instructional persuasion. Would it not be more natural if, before going to China or Japan, they worked to convert the Heretics and the Infidels, their brothers and fellow citizens? I naively admit that I cannot understand why they do two unnecessary wrongs: one to the prince and the state by decreasing the number of his people, the other to these poor people who are chased away and ruined. Besides, if by (181) chance these exiles did not find others who have the same feelings as theirs and if all the nations in which they arrive acted as those that chased them away, they would have to throw themselves into the sea or bury themselves alive, which would be completely contrary to humanity. Every man who does not deserve death belongs to at least one place on earth by universal decree of the Creator. However, I do not want, through the misgivings that I put forward, to set myself up as a judge of the matters of the great to whom it belongs to examine their consciences as to whether or not they can refrain from impoverishing themselves by ordering similar expulsions of some of their people, (182) the thing in itself being indisputable. It is for them to know if the true interests of the state are incompatible with those of their religion; at least I would advise a Prince who could not resolve to keep subjects of a religion different from his own to try to fill their places immediately with others and to make a kind of exchange with neighboring states.
To understand even more clearly how much an increase in the number of people enriches a state and how much a decrease impoverishes it, it is good just to imagine a town ruined by the plague, having lost, for example, one half of its inhabitants. Those who died took nothing that is (183) usually revered so greatly as goods and wealth: money, houses, furnishing, merchandise, fields, vineyards, and gardens are still the same as they were before. The inhabitants who survived seem to have become richer by gaining the portions of those who died. However, it is easy to show that the town has lost half its wealth, that the goods that exist have lost half their value, and that those who still live are not, generally speaking, as rich by half as they were before.
Previous Page