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.