As for pytying the poore, it is no pitie, not to wish a begger to become a prince, though ye allow him a pennie, and pitie his needefull want. Is he poore? prouide for him, that he may liue by trade, but let him not loyter. Is he wittie? why? be artificers fooles? and do not all trades occupie wit? sometimes to much, and thereby both straine their owne heades to the worse, and proue to suttle for a great deale their betters. Is he verie likely to proue singuler in learning? I do not reiect him, for whom I prouide a publike helpe in common patronage. But he doth not well to oppose his owne particular, against the publike good, let his countrie thinke of him enough, and not he of him selfe to much. If _nobilitie_ and _gentlemen_ would fall to diligence, and recouer the execution of learning, where were this obiection? The greatest assurers of it affirme, that learning was wont to be proper to _nobilitie_, and that through their negligence it is left for a pray to the meaner sort, and a bootie to corruption, where the professours neede offereth wrongfull violence to the liberalitie of the thing. Do they not therein confesse, where the right of the thing lyeth and themselues to be vsurpers, if they should enter vpon their owne, whose the interest is, and whom in so many discourses of nobilitie, they themselues blame so much for their so great negligence? They must needes here yeelde without law to their owne confession. But we see God hath shewed himselfe meruelous munificent and beneficiall this way to the poorer sort. I grant, yet that proues not, but that he bestowed as great giftes of them which shewed not. And that as _diligence_ in the one did shew that they had, to the glorie of the giuer, and their owne praise: so _negligence_ in the other, did suppresse that they had to their owne shame, who neither honoured the giuer, nor honested themselues, nor profited their countrie. So that here not the _gift_, but the _shew_ is brought in allegation. And why not the greater _talent_ hid seeing it is no noueltie? But the other shew. Nomore then that they haue. And the other shew not. No argument that they haue not. Take order then, that they shew, which haue and hide, and then make comparisons. Be great giftes tied to the meane, or banished from the mighty? be there not as good wittes in wealth, though oftimes choked with _dissolutenes_ and _negligence_, as there be in pouertie appearing thorough _paines_ and _diligence_? Nay be there not as vntoward _poorelinges_, as there be wanton _wealthlinges_? I know yes, and when vntowardnes and an ill inclynation hittes in a base condition, it proues more vile. So that this thing turnes about to my other conclusion, that neither pouertie is to be pitied more then the countrey, if pitie must needes take place: neither riches more to be esteemed then the common weale, if wealth must needes be wayed: but that the value in wittes must be heelde of most worth, which hath her hauen already appointed, where to harbour her selfe, in maintenaunce to studie, either by priuate helpe, if the parents be wealthy, or by publike ayde, if pouertie praie for it.