Early in his reign, when filled with pride by his victory over the rebel Ghazali, and feeling warm friendship toward Doge Loredano of Venice, he wished to send the rebel’s head to the Doge by a special embassy, and was dissuaded only with great difficulty by the Bailo of Venice in Constantinople.[697] After Mohacs two thousand heads were set on poles about his tent.[698] To Western eyes it seems a blot upon the noble and generous character of Suleiman, that he treated the heads of his enemies and of condemned criminals after the fashion of his time and country. Aside from the question of barbarity and cruelty, however, the policy of summary and certain execution of offenders was essential to the maintenance of the Ottoman Ruling Institution in power. It was a process of pruning, by which every dangerous growth was cut away. Had it not been done, the system would have seemed today more commendable, but it could hardly have failed to perish quickly. A century after Suleiman the remark was made that what preserved the Ottoman state was the quickness and severity of justice for crimes which had relation to the government.[699] What was the general character of Ottoman justice? It is to be feared that it was often venal. A few years after Suleiman’s death a Western writer expressed the opinion that the only incorruptible courts were those of the grand vizier and the Divan.[700] Another charged that Christian subjects had unfair treatment before the courts, in which they were not allowed to testify, since some of the Moslems considered it almost a meritorious religious act to turn a case against a Christian by false testimony.[701] It is probable, however, that the Ottoman courts in Suleiman’s time were reasonably just. The judges were well-paid, highly honored, and carefully inspected by honest men who were sent out annually by the _Kaziaskers_;[702] nevertheless, many of them no doubt yielded to the same desire for money that afflicted the _kullar_. In at least one respect the Ottoman courts were highly to be commended: there was a minimum of trouble because of the “law’s delay.” Cases were always decided promptly, and in clear and simple terms. An unjust decision quickly given is often less expensive and less annoying in the long run than tardy justice.[703]