I have even heard it said that the elder brother is not obliged to put on mourning when the younger dies; which is a clear saving of so much black cloth.
This being the case, why are not the Roman princes richer than they are?
It is to be accounted for by two excellent reasons,--the love of show, and bad management.
Ostentation, the Roman disease, requires that every nobleman should have a palace in the city, and a palace in the country: carriages, horses, lacqueys and liveries.

They can do without mattresses, linen, and armchairs, but a gallery of pictures is indispensable.

It is not thought necessary to have a decent dinner every Sunday, but it is to have a terraced garden for the admiration of foreigners.

These imaginary wants swallow up the income, and not unfrequently eat into the capital.
And yet I could point out half-a-dozen estates which could suffice for the prodigalities of a sovereign, if they were managed in the English, or even in the French fashion,--if the owner were to interfere personally, and see with his own eyes, instead of allowing a host of middlemen to come between him and his property, who of course enrich themselves at his expense.
Not that the Roman princes knowingly allow their affairs to go to ruin.

They must by no means be confounded with the _grands seigneurs_ of old France, who laughed over the wreck of their fortunes, and avenged themselves upon a steward by a _bon mot_ and a kick.