So when Richelieu became prime minister, and felt secure in his seat,—­knowing how necessary to the King his services were,—­he laid aside his amiable manners as a politician, and determined as a statesman to carry out remorselessly and rigidly his plans for the exaltation of the monarchy.  And the moment he spoke at the council-board his genius predominated; all saw that a great power had arisen, that he was a master, and would be obeyed, and would execute his plans with no sentimentalities, but coldly, fixedly, like a man of blood and iron, indifferent to all obstacles.  He was a man who could rule, and therefore, on Carlyle’s theory, a man who ought to rule, because he was strong.

There is something imposing, I grant, in this executive strength; it does not make a man interesting, but it makes him feared.  Every ruler,—­in fact every man intrusted with executive power, especially in stormy times,—­should be resolute, unflinching, with a will dominating over everything, with courage, pluck, backbone, be he king or prime minister, or the superintendent of a railway, or director of a lunatic asylum, or president of a college.  No matter whether the sphere be large or small, the administration of power requires energy, will, promptness of action, without favor and without fear.  And if such a person rules well he will be respected; but if he rules unwisely,—­if capricious, unjust, cruel, vindictive,—­he may be borne for a while, until patience is exhausted and indignation becomes terrible:  a passion of vengeance, like that which overthrew Strafford.  Wise tyrants, like Peter and Frederic the Great, will be endured, from their devotion to public interests; but unwise tyrants, ruling for self-interest or pleasure, will be hurled from power, or assassinated like Nero or Commodus, as the only way to get rid of the miseries they inflict.

Now of the class of wise and enlightened tyrants was Richelieu.  His greatness was in his will, sagacity, watchfulness, and devotion to public affairs.  Factions could not oust him, because he was strong; the King would not part with him, because he was faithful; posterity will not curse him, because he laid the foundation of the political greatness of his country.

I do not praise his system of government.  On abstract principles I feel that it is against the liberties of mankind; nor is it in accordance with the progress of government in our modern times.  All the successive changes which reforms and revolutions have wrought have been towards representative and constitutional governments,—­as in England and France in the nineteenth century.  Absolutism or Caesarism is only adapted to people in primitive or anarchical states of society,—­as in old Rome, or Rome under the popes.  It is at the best a necessary tyranny, made so by the disorders and evils of life.  It can be commended only when men are worse than governments; when they are to be coerced like wild beasts, or lunatics, or scoundrels.  When there is universal plunder, lying, cheating, and murdering; when laws are a mockery, and when demagogues reign; when all public interests are scandalously sacrificed for private emolument,—­then absolutism may for a time be necessary; but only for a time, unless we assume that men can never govern themselves.