The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1868.

POPE HONORIUS AND PAPAL 11YFALLI-
BILI7Y.

(From the Westminster Gazette.)
The Pope, according to the teaching of the
innumerable theologians who defend Papal

infallibility, is infallible when he issues, in
virtue of the plenitude of the power which

he has received, not from the Church, but
from God, doctrinal decisions for the instruc-
tion of the Church; that is to say, when

he teaches the faithful, not simply proposing
to them something to be believed, but binding
them by the obedience which, as members
of the Church, they owe to its Head, to
follow him as their Teacher, and to subject
themselves to his ordinance. He speaks not

in the name of the Church, but as the Vice-

gerent of Christ, and, consequently, his deci-
sions infallibly bind the Church. Otherwise,

were he bound to consult the Church or a

Council beforehand, he would not be possessed

of the supreme plenitude of power, but be

•
subject to an authority higher and more com-
plete than his own. Such a subjection, how-
ever, is contrary, as is well-known, to the
decisions of the Councils of Lyons and of Flo-
rence.

Applying these tests to the case of Honorius,
it is evident, from the character and tone of
his letters to Sergius, that Honorius did not
intend them as a doctrinal decision, binding
the faithful to hold that there was only one
energy in Christ ; indeed, nowhere in his letter
did he even say that there was only one energy;
on the contrary, he deprecated the use of the
expression. If, on the other hand, he depre-
cated. also the expression " two energies," he
did not say or mean that the truth indicated
by this expression should not be held ; on the
contrary, in. his second letter, he clearly
pointed it out in a passage which throws the
clearest light on the real meaning of Honorius.
He does not by a single word designate the
expression " two energies" as false, but only
as vain, and, under the circumstances, as pre-
judicial. It must be remembered, also, that
though the truth was old the form of words
used to express it was new and unfamiliar,
and had not received the special stamp of
orthodoxy which they have since acquired.
Pope Honorius, moreover, does not address
Sergius as if he were speaking in the plenitude
of his power, his sole object being by mediation,
exhortation and advice, to put an end to the con-
troversy. Had Honorius laid it down as a rule
of faith that there was only " one energy " in
Christ, or designated the expression one
energy " as exclusively true, and " two
energies " as false, and promulgated this de-
cision for the instruction of the Church, then
only could it be said that Pope Honorius had j
taught -heresy ex cathedra. Hence, as F.
Schneemann in the conclusion of his treatise I
observes, the Honorius question, in a dogmatic
point of view; has not the importance which at
first sight it might seem to have. The Gal-
licans, Dr. Dellinger and Mr. Renouf, have
vainly endeavoured, when they wished to
lessen the Papal authority, to turn this vexed
question to account. They have failed, in
spite of genius, learning, and the investiga-
tion of original sources, to prove either that
Honorius taught heresy ex cathedra, or held
heretical views. As to Mr. Renouf, in spite of
his profound investigations, he has not pro-
duced a single particle of fresh or original
evidence, or raised one objection against Hono-
rius, which- had not been previously raised
and refuted. Neither has he succeeded at all
in establishing a theory of his own, for he has
nowhere clearly avowed himself a Gallican,
in place of the Ultramontane system of theo-
logy which he holds to be untenable. What,
if we may be allowed to ask without offending
his susceptibilities, is Mr. Renouf's system of
theology ?
In the teeth of the decisions of the Councils
of Lyons and of Florence ; in opposition to
the judgment of a long catena of theologians,
and in spite of the condemned theories of
Gallicanism, to deny now Papal infallibility,
and start a new theory on Church Govern-
ment in direct antagonism to the mind of
the Church of the present day, is a piece
of audacity which borders on the absurd—
we had almost said upon the insane. What
weight would any rational man attach to the
scattered opinions of individual theologians or
Church historians against the decisions of
Councils, the acts of Popes, and the all but
unanimous judgment, ever since the question
has been seriously discussed, of the greatest
theologians in favour of Papal infallibility ?
On the gradual discussion and fuller recog-
nition in the Church of Papal infallibility, F.
Schneemann makes the following just remarks,
in striking contrast to Mr. Renouf's narrow
views and captious tone :—" The same thing
happened," he says, "in regard to the doc-
trine of Papal infallibility as occurred in
regard to other points in theology, and in poli-
tics, in poetry, in rhetoric, and grammar. In
the first instance it was practically acted on,
and only later was it critically and scien-
tifically examined. Hence it was that, although
in the middle ages many discussions are to be
found on the infallibility of the Pope, this
doctrine, as well as many others touching the
Primacy, was never thoroughly or systemati-
cally set forth ;" and in the same way, adds F.
Schneemann, " the orthbdoxy of Honorius,
which stands in special contact with the
question of infallibility, was left unnoticed."
The results of such an investigation, however,
when it did take place, compltely overthrew,
as Mr. Renouf is the first to acknowledge, the
Gallican theory ; but with the overthrow of
the Gallican theories, and the disproof of the
alleged heresy of Honorius, which was the main
argument in support of his view, were it not
wise in Mr. Renouf to reconsider the position
he had taken up, under the conviction which
we hope he can no longer entertain, that Popes
had been condemned for teaching heresy to the
Church.

However mischievous and however offensive
to Catholic loyalty Mr. Renouf's views may be,
his theory is vague and indefinite in comparison
with the theory of infallibility which F. Ryder
has introduced to the notice of English Catho-
lics. It is not necessary here to recount the
controversy between F. Ryder and Dr. Ward,
which is now familiar to every educated
Catholic interested in the intellectual life and
in the movement of religious thought pecu-
liar to our times. Theology at this moment
in Protestant England is occupying in a sir-
gular manner the minds of men ; contro-
versies touching the deepest questions of reli-
gion are carried on with an eagerness and
a boldness which, if at times irreverent,
show at least an impatience of doubt
and a thirst for truth, infinitely superior
to the listlessness and apathy of indifferentism.
One of the points most in dispute in our times,
is the relation between the will of God and the
mind of man. Is man bound to submit his
reason to she revelations of God is the question
that comes uppermost now? It seems to us that
this question, in a modified form, lies at the
bottom of the controversy between F. Ryder
and Dr. Ward. It is painful for the human
mind to surrender at discretion, it is com-
paratively easy to submit iu silence, generously
and loyally, but it is a test of real suhjection to
accept, with an interior assent, what is pro-
posed, not by our own minds, but by an
authority external to ourselves. Such a sub-
jection, however, can only be claimed from us
by an infallible authority. Intellectual rebel-
liousness resents a claim, which as Catholics,
we are bound to acknowledge and submit
to. If we, however, partake in any degree
of the intellectual rebelliousness, which is
the characteristic evil of our age, what is
more natural than to endeavour, if we must
as Catholics accept an infallible authority, to
circumscribe its extent as much as possible,
and limit its exercise to such rare and remote
occasions as will make the burden compara-
tively tolerable. This is in effect what F.
Ryder's theory does ; it is a Catholic form of
intellectual rebelliousness. We are speaking
quite in the abstract, judging simply from re-
sultsquite apart from motives, for we have no
ground whatsoever to impute evil motives to

the author of the thccr..y. But the theory itself
seems as if it we-1 e conceived with the object of
reconciling, as far as possible, the intellectual
Liberalism of the day with the positive re-
quirements of Catholic theology. For this pur-
pose Catholic theology is pared down to its
rind, and Liberalism is beseeched by various

forms of adulation, abuse of extremes being
not the least, to accept the sacrifice. Of course
the projector of the theory did not intend to
go below the lowest limits allowed in the
Church, for otherwise he would have defeated
his own purpose. But the question which Dr.
Ward has raised and pressed on the attention
of Catholics is :—Have not the lawful limits

of Catholic teaching been completely over-
stepped by the new theory proposed by F.
Ryder to the Catholics of England ? The im-
portance of this question, in its many aspects,
cannot be overrated. It trenches upon an
essential dogma of the Catholic faith, the
infallible authority of the Church ; it affects
the intellectual life of Catholics in relation to
science and to modern thought ; it has an im-
portant bearing on the duty they owe to the
Holy See in the practical concerns of life. This
new theory is not proposed, as that by Mr.
Renouf, as a display of pedantic antiqua-
rianism, or as an occasion for the exhibition
of ill-tempered disloyalty, but it is a theory
pregnant with mischievous life, it is akin to the
spirit of the age, taking up into itself, not
the full current of intellectual rebelliousness,
but the small side streams which, flowing
through devious courses, ultimately lead on to
the great sea of open rebellion.
How this question as to whether the theory
proposed by F. Ryder does not exceed the
limits of Catholic teaching in grave points
affecting the Catholic doctrine of the Infalli-
bility of the Church is answered, our readers
may see, in Dr. Ward's last pamphlet. In " A
Brief Summary on the Recent Controversy-
on Infallibility," Dr. Ward puts in a con-
densed and forcible form those opinions ad-
vanced by F. Ryder, which he holds to be
" gravely censurable." Hitherto, throughout
the controversy, he has mainly confined himself
to a thorough investigation of the principle of
the Church's infallibility, and to a defence of
the various propositions which he has ad-
vanced,. showing that they were based on that
principle, and were the necessary,consequences
of its exercise, and that to deny these pro-

positions would, as a necessary logical conse
quence, lead to the denial of the. Church's
infallibility altogether. So intent was he on
defending and explaining the. Church's doc-
trine on the infallible authority bestowed by
God on St. Peter's successors, and so self=
forgetful, that he quietly allowed himself to
be placed, as it were, in a pillory, to be pelted
at by every puny whipster who could cast a
stone. His antagonists endeavoured at first
to make the Catholic public believe that Dr.
Ward was recklessly disturbing the peace of
consciences by introducing new-fangled ideas
and extravagant pretensions concerning the
infallibility of the Church. In the present
" Brief Summary," Dr. Ward has turned the
tables on his opponents, and has effectually
shown that the theory invented by F. Ryder
in limitation of the Church's infallibility is not
only novel, but can only be upheld on essen-
tially antiCa.tholic principles. It was evidently
owing to his untenable position that F. Ryder,
under the pressure of adverse arguments, had
so constantly to shift his ground, without, how-
ever, as Dr. Ward complains, distinctly dis-
avowing all the points which, in the course of
the controversy, he has " tacitly and unosten-
tatiously surrendered." In his " Brief Sum-
mary," Dr. Ward takes as his starting point
the two data on which he and F. Ryder are
agreed. " We are agreed," he says, " (1)
that whatever infallibility is possessed by Pope
and bishops collectively, is possessed by the
Pontiff speaking ex cathedra ; we are agreed
also (2) that he speaks infallibly whenever he
imposes on Catholics the obligation of abso-
lute interior assent. And now, passing from
our points of agreement to our points of diffe-
rence, in my first section I will state, as drily
and briefly as r can, what appear to me your
gravest errors, and my reasons for thinking
them thus grave. You will understand me
all through as admitting most fully (what I
expressly stated in my second letter) how
high and loyal are many of your Catholic
instincts ;' and as recognizing most vividly
that your opinions are indefinitely higher than
what I must consider the legitimate outcome
of your principles."
Dr. Ward then proceeds to state the gravest
errors in F. Ryder's theory, and to give his
reasons for holding these errors to be so grave.
We regret want of space forbids us to give
these reasons at fall ; they are too long for
extract, and too condensed to be abridged.
The foundation of F. Ryder's theory Dr. Ward
holds to be his view as to the authority of
uncondemned theologians. " You hold," says
Dr. Ward, " in fact, that whatever tenet any
Catholic theologian may have advocated in
any of his works without being actually cen-
sured, that tenet may be embraced by us
without our violating any grave obligation
imposed on all Catholics. Your argument
for so strange an opinion is simply this :
'lf all Catholics were under a grave obligation
of repudiating some given tenet, that tenet
would be gravely censurable ; but if it were
gravely censurable, it would certainly have
been censured.' "
But Dr. Ward shows that opinions may be
truly censurable which have even been actu-
ally brought before the notice of authority,
and yet escaped censure, and he brings forward
as evidence of this fact that a certain work of
Bossuet .was not condemned, not that it did
not deserve condemnation, but (1) that Bos-
suet had done great services to the Church,
and (2) that (after all) greater mischief might
probably be done by condemning it than let-
ting it alone. The fundamental error of F.
Ryder's thesis is then " the inference which
you continually draw, for the permissibleness
of some tenet, from the Church's non-pro-
scription of some individual theologian who
has advocated it." And continues Dr. Ward,
" Your second grave error (as I consider it)
has been to so great an extent criticized in
treating your first, that but few additional
words are necessary. I refer of course to your
opinion—(l) that certain doctrinal censures
pronounced by the Church are not infallibly
deserVed ; and (2) that there is no grave obli-
gation incumbent on all Catholics, of accept-
ing as infallible any censures milder than that
of heretical.' As I have just pointed out, both
in the Unigenitus ' and in the Auctorem
Fidei ' this obligation is most unequivocally
expressed. I must repeat, indeed, what I said
in my recent letter, that only by a happy
inconsistency do you account the Church infal-
lible in her very definitions of faith. Her pos-
session of that infallibility (as you say your-
self) is only proved by her claim of absolute
assent for those definitions. But she cannot
possibly claim that assent in more unmistak-
able terms, than in those of the Auctorem
Fidel' which you would explain away. I
should add, that the obligation on which I
am insisting has been recognized by every
moral theologian, without exception, who has
treated the matter at all. You admit this in
your letter, p. 36. I had mentioned in October
the names of Viva, S. Aiphonsus, Bouvier,
Scavini ; you candidly add on your own ac-
count, that even authors such as La Croix
and Reuter, who . . . contemplate the. hold-
ing that a condemned proposition may be
true, still condemn of grave sin such as hold
the injustice of its condemnation.' " Dr.
Ward then proceeds to another point: —" 3.
I must next refer to your language concerning
the Mirari vos,' and concerning certain capi-
tula of Trent. In both these cases the Church
claims from 'Catholics an absolute interior
assent, in language so unequivocal and peremp-
tory that nothing can possibly be more so. In
both these cases you persistently deny that all
Catholics are under any such obligation. Your
position (as I have more than once said) has
no legitimate issue, short of denying the
Church's infallibility altogether. 4. I have
maintained confidently throughout, that the

Church can infallibly condemn errors which
are injurious to the Faith ; even though they
do not contradict any portion of the Deposit,
either in themselves or by legitimate argu-
mentative consequence. In other words—
since the condemnation of an error as such is

she affirmation of its contradictory—l main-
ain that the Church can infallibly teach cer-
tain doctrines, which neither are immediately

revealed, nor yet follow by legitimate argu-
mentative consequence from revealed dogmata.
As I must return to this question more than
once, it will be a great convenience if I give
once for all a particular appellation to these
two classes. I will call those doctrines then

deducible,' which may be inferred from the
deposit by legitimate argumentative conse-
quence ; and I will call those protective '
which are not deducible indeed from the De-

posit, but which are regarded by the Church
as importantly serviceable for its protection.
You deny her infallibility in teaching these
protective ' doctrines ; and I cannot but con-
sider your denial a very serious error. I may
add that while there is, perhaps, no point'on
which you so earnestly insist as on this, there
is none (as will immediately be seen) on which
you are so curiously inconsistent." Dr. Ward
then states his reasons against F. Ryder's
opinion, and then proceeds thus : " 5.
My last instance, under this head of serious
errors, shall be a view, which not only you
have not explicitly stated, but which, if expli-
citly stated, I fully believe you would repu-
diate. Yet it is implied, I think, in various
portions of your letter, and particularly in your
argument on the ,vos ' and the Sylla-
bus. You often reason as though the Supreme
Pontiff were tied by God's law to certain
particular forms and .methods of exercising
his office as Universal Teacher. For myself,
on the contrary, I maintain, as a vital Catholic
truth, that he is entirely free in this respect ;
that he may teach the Church either by writing
or by word of mouth ; either in this way or
that ; in one age of the Church he may con-
demn the chief errors of his age ' by dogmatic
Bulls ; at another time by Encyclicals,
Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters.' In
a thousand different ways he may sufficiently
indicate his intention of t3aching the Church ;
but whenever and however he may do so, the
Holy Ghost interposes to preserve his instruc-
tions from even the slightest intermixture of
error. See what I have urged in my Second
Letter, from p. 30 to p. 35. Still, as I have
said, I by no means allege that you explicitly
advocate this last opinion which I have been
combating. As to the others, however, which
I have recited in this section, they are indu-
bitably yours. And, speaking with profoundest
deference to ecclesiastical authority, I submit
that they are gravely censurable in themselves,
and that they threaten the Faith with grievous
peril. I am obliged to add that the very
circumstance, which I have ever been for-
ward in testifying, of your Catholic tone and
demeanour towards the Church, makes your
position incomparably more perilous to her in-
terests than it would otherwise be. Your
membership of an illustrious Congregation
adds increased peril. Men expect that funda-
mentally anti-Catholic principles shall have
been advocated in the Chronicle or the Home
and Foreign Review; and they find such
principles there &pressed, in the peculiar
style of those very unattractive and happily
defunct periodicals. But when a Philippine
endorses those principles—exhibiting the while
a generally loyal and reverential tone towards
the Church—they begin to think that the
poison cannot be so very virulent after all."
Dr. Ward then proceeds to axa,me in the
second section other points at issue between
himself and F. Ryder, and in the third section
replies to F. Ryder's answers concerning the
Syllabus. The fourth section is on doctrinal
expositions, and treats of F. Ryder's change
of ground and his misapprehension of Dr.
Ward's thesis. Dr. Ward regrets that F.
Ryder has not explained whether or not he is
as yet convinced that the " Mirari Vos " and
.St. Leo's Dogmatic Letter are ex cathedra.
For these discussions and generally for the
reasons which Dr. Ward, in a condensed and
forcible manner brings forward in support of
his judgment of F. Ryder's theory, we must
refer our readers to the pamphlet itself. At
page 19, Dr. Ward thus sums up his thesis :
" My thesis then may be thus summed up : (1)
The Pontiff may speak infallibly no less in
expositions than in propositions. (2) His ex-
positions are infallible always and only, when
they are intended for the purpose of inculcating
doctrine on the Universal Church. Yet (3)
they need not be addressed formally to the
Universal Church, but may be otherwise
authenticated as obliging the absolute assent
of Catholics. There remain behind, no doubt,
a large number of very important inquiries ;
but on these I have either not • spoken confi-
dently or not spoken at all. How are we to
know that some given Pontifical Act is intended
for the purpose of inculcating doctrine ? How
are we to know whether some Act, confessedly,
doctrinal but addressed to an individual, is in-
tended for his instruction or for that of the
whole Church When the Act is confessedly
ex cathedra how are we to know whether some
given statement be a doctrinal instruction or
au obiter diction ? or whether the doctrine it
contains be inculcated as infallibly certain or
only as infallibly the more probable ? These
questions cry aloud for discussion. On several
of them I put forth some humble suggestions
in January, 1868 ; but I took care to state that
I spoke on them with great diffidence, and
entirely under correction. And here, in con-
sequence of your remarks at Postcript, p. 3,
I must once more repeat what I have said again
and again. By the term "doctrinal instruction"
I have never meant any doctrinal statement
directly expressed in a Pontifical Act; but only
a doctrinal statement put forth for the purpose
of teaching doctrine. See my second letter, p.
45, note. Now as to my various instances
of doctrinal expositions. I adduced them against
the thesis which you have now tacitly surren-
dered ; namely, that no teaching is ex cathedra
except the approval or condemnation of dis-
tinct and definite propositions. It is abun-
dantly possible, however, just as you have
now unconsciously abandoned your original
position, that you may hereafter with equal
unconsciousness revert to it ; and it is abun-
dantly possible also, that some who have fol-
lowed you in your original view may not follow
you in forsaking it. I will therefore point out
with the greatest attainable brevity, how irre-
fragably the instances which I adduced esta-
blish the conclusion for which I adduced them.
I think indeed I may complain of unfair con-
troversial reserve, in your way of dealing with
some of their number." For this establishment
of Dr. Ward's conclusions we must again refer
our readers to Dr. Ward's pamphlet.
In conclusion of his pamphlet, as remarkable
for its kind and generous treatment of an op-
ponent as it is for forcible reasoning and clear
statement, Dr. Ward says :—" I never under-
stood your theory as a whole until I read your
letter ;' and my immediate reply to that letter
was mainly defensive: it results therefore, that
I have now written more aggressively than on
any previous occasion. I entreat you, how-
ever, to believe, that I have not a- particle
of ill-feeling towards you. I have been assailed
in my time with great acrimony, and few per-
sons are equally sensitive to such assaults. But
I said in my first letter that even in your
' Idealism' I had observed no one trace of
unkindness or bitterness; while your `letter'
contains many kind references to me, for which
I am most grateful. I have felt also from
first to last that I was dealing with a thoroughly
upright and honourable combatant, who seeks
truth, and who takes every pains to under-
stand his opponent. I should add that, though
I have not yet the pleasure of your personal
acquaintance, the many private letters which
have passel have generated a kind of friend-
ship between us. But then we must look at
propositions in the abstract, apart from such
circumstances as these. And 1 must frankly
express my opinion that your tenets unite
argumentative baselessness with practical

calamitousness, to an extent rare in Catholic
controversy. No doubt you have displayed
much incidental power and theological know-
ledge. But I have been surprised, as the con-
t:oversy moved onwards, to find the poverty,
or rather the complete absence, of argument
adduced for your general thesis. You have
not overstated the fact when you say (Letter,
pp. 4,5) that " I am utterly unable to con-
ceive '—or, at least, to find in your writings
—` any sort of justification '—nay, or any one
solid argument—' for any one of your posi-
tions ' antagonistic to mine. So much on the
argumentative baselessness of your thesis. On
its practical calamitousness let me repeat what
I have so often said. I consider that your
principles lead, by necessary and very speedy
consequence, to a denial of the Church's in-
fallibility altogether ; or, in. other words, to
apostacy from her communion. Nor does it
at all follow, because assuredly no such result
will ensue in your own case, that there may
not be real danger of it in the case of others.
This or that Catholic may temporarily accept
your principles, who does not enjoy that
protection which is afforded you by your per-
sonal piety, your Catholic instincts, and your
priestly duties. If he be a straightforward
and consistent thinker, there is every hope
he may speedily abandon those principles in
alarm and dismay. But there is a real danger
that he may carry them forward to their
legitimate conclusion, and apostatize from the
faith."

We beseech our readers not to be deterred
from the study of this serious question, on
the alleged ground that the grave difference
of opinion which has arisen is on an abstruse
point of theology, or that it is in itself a mat-
ter of indifference, or that at best it is unprac-
tical in its character. In the first place
nothing can be a matter of indifference which
affects in any way the relations between the
faithful and the Head of the Church. But

this question, as everyone who has considered
it must acknowledge, does very vitally affect
the character of the authority which the

Church exercises over the mind, and affects
it in a most practical way. Questions of everry
day life, such as mixed or Catholic education,
the frequentation of Protestant universities,
the relations between science and theology,

will be discussed or acted upon in different

ways by men who, on the one hand, hold that
the judgment of the Church on these and kin-
dred matters is infallible and commands inte-
rior assent, and by men who believe, on the
other, that these are matters in which the
Church may err, and that consequently they
are at liberty to hold their own opinion and
act as their judgment prompts. .Surely the
possibility of such a divergence ought at least
to put Catholics on their guard against tole-
rating, even by silent acquiescence, the intro-
duction amongst ourselves of so dangerous a
theory as that defended with such pertinacity
by F. Ryder.

JOINT-STOCK Siff INDLES.

(From the Anglo-American Times.)

Some time ago the Spectator wrote an article on
the economic value of the Eighth Commandment,
which excited abroad much attention and comment,
as it exposed the commercial immorality of the Eng-
lish people. Shortly after we published an article
from the New York Nation on the subject, con-
trasting commercial morality in America and in
England. It asserted that if there were fewer
gigantic swindles in the United States it was not
for want of enterprise or ability, the necessary skill
and courage more abounding there than here.
Though the moral basis of American society is
similar, and the religious training the same—indeed,
exactly alike in the classes in England who do most
of the swiudling--yet the state of things revealed
here, could not, the writer asserted, exist there, even
supposing the commercial morality of Americans
to be no higher than that of Englishmen. One of
the reasons for this is that wealth is not so highly
prized in America as in England, being easier of
attainment, and, when acquired, lilt bestowing the
same a Ivan tages. But the cause which most struck
us was that in every aristocratic country posaessiug
a mass of accumulate I c►pital there is a large
body of persons belonging to what may be called
the " gentle" classes, who have money to in-
vest, but are ignorant of business to a degree
few Americans can imagine. These consist of
daughters and younger sons of goo I families,
half-pay officers, professional rn2n with small
fortunes, and even the children of tra len who
have been educated in another sphere, all of whom,
instead of being ashamed of their waut of know-
ledge, glory in it as a mark of a certain social posi-
tion. The investments of this class in railroads and
joint-stock companies of various kinds are enor-
mous, and they furnish a prey to fraudulent direc-
tors and operators such as no rogues probably ever
lighted on before, and such as rogues in America
never meet with. Were the truth of this statement
disputed, abundant evidence could be produced by
the lists of the victims in the late swindles that
have so disgraced the English name. Men not yet
old have in thousands been educated throughout
England in the conviction that trade is degrading
and demoralising, and have remained profoundly
ignorant of all the requirements and tests of joint-
stock undertakings. Yet in times of mania these
persons, impelled by greed, rush into concerns they
do not understand, and not only become an easy
prey, but make rascals of thousands who might
otherwise remain honest. If a shoal of small fry
get into deep waters they bring balk into the shal-
lows many big fish which could only be attracted
there in the pursuit to devour them. The reaction
of the fright tends to stigmatise business, and con-
vinces the " gentle" classes of the truth of the im-
pressions they have inherited; so they hug their
ignorance until a new generation arise to be
duped in their turn, and to recoil in the same way.
The feeling which urges men to make the most of
their means must always remain, and if the igno-
rance also remains, these violent manias and disas-
trous panics will be periodical. What those classes
have suffered within the last two years will never
be known to the world ; but if the multitude of
failed concerns be considered, it will be seen in the
aggregate to be frightful. The suffering does not
consist alone in the loss of the money actually in-
vested, but in the liability involve 1, fur most of
these " limited" liability swindles were conceived,
carried on, and wound up with the express object
of defrauding to the utmost those duped into be-
coming shareholders. Many of these persons were
educated in the conviction that a gentleman could
neither lie nor steal, and that people of good repu-
tation in a certain social position were gentlemen.
Attracted by statements to which such names were
appended. as a rule they called at the office for
information, and saw a glib secretary, who rubbed
his hands with glee over the heaps of money about
to be made by every one fortunate enough to se-
cure an interest in the new concern. This accom-
modating gentleman would be the friend of the
inquirer and advocate his cause in the allotment of
shares. The certainty of the facts and figures was
pleasant to dwell on, both to himself and the
listener, and while interest was paid out of capi-
tal it was charming for the investor to think ho .v
shrewd he had bean, and how well he deserved
of all who derived a benefit from his 8L1C3033.
Ignorant of all the intricacies of trade, unable to
analyse a report, or to understand how a depression
in one branch affected another, believing in the
truth of the statements made, and unaware of the
total change passing over the commercial world,
the victim rested in a false security till fairly caught
in the undertaking when insolvent. Then only the
peFition began to be realized, and the glib secretary
was applied to for information. Of course the scheme
was thoroughly sound and did but break down from
the lack of funds, from the dishonesty of foreign
agents, from the failure of other companies, from
the want of confidence in the banks and lendees.
They were all innocent victims of an inappreciative
public of anything but the lyiug, liiag c;e4r.
It was vain to point to the prospectus, to the
balance-sheets, for the statements are without
exaggeration and the figured correct ; bat who
could foresee this, who autie'pate that? C a!ls
press at the time other property is depreciate 1 ot
unsaleable, and the victim bcc)m !,3 a seppliant.