6. Among other grievances of supreme authority one is, that the ruler, beside those monies necessary for public charges, as the maintaining of public ministers, building, and defending of castles, waging wars, honourably sustaining his own household, may also, if he will, exact others through his lust, whereby to enrich his sons, kindred, favourites, and flatterers too. I confess this is a grievance, but of the number of those which accompany all kinds of government, but are more tolerable in a _monarchy_ than in a _democracy_. For though the monarch would enrich them, they cannot be many, because belonging but to one. But in a _democracy_, look how many demagogues, that is, how many powerful orators there are with the people, (which ever are many, and daily new ones growing), so many children, kinsmen, friends, and flatterers are to be rewarded. For every of them desire not only to make their families as potent, as illustrious in wealth, as may be, but also to oblige others to them by benefits, for the better strengthening of themselves. A _monarch_ may in great part satisfy his officers and friends, because they are not many, without any cost to his subjects; I mean without robbing them of any of those treasures given in for the maintenance of war and peace. In a _democracy_, where many are to be satisfied, and always new ones, this cannot be done without the subject’s oppression. Though a _monarch_ may promote unworthy persons, yet oft times he will not do it; but in a _democracy_, all the popular men are therefore supposed to do it, because it is necessary; for else the power of them who did it, would so increase, as it would not only become dreadful to those others, but even to the whole city also. [Sidenote: Innocent subjects are less obnoxious to punishment under a monarch, than under the people.]