The Central Glamorgan Gazette, and General, Commercial, and Agricultural Advertiser. — 1882-03-10 (Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

THE GLAMORGAN GAZETTE.  FRIDAY, MARCH 10TH, 1882.  SUSCEPTIBILITIES OF HUMAN NATURE.  THE evidence which has been adduced in the Furneaux trial is not open to comment as far as the prisoners are concerned. This side of the case is closed against public criticism for the present, but there is no reason why the testimony of the witnesses, as far as it tells against their own intellectual capacity, should not be made the subject of observation. The student of human nature is here presented with interesting material for study. We have a body of over a hundred persons, hard-headed business men, money-lenders and lawyers, some married and some single, and married and single women also, all claiming to have believed with childlike credulity the most wild improbabilities. The infinite capacity of human nature for believing anything where no more than belief is asked is proved to us every day. How many thousands are there among us who labour under the firm conviction that the spirits of their departed friends amuse themselves by making chairs and tables dance, or performing other equally useful feats for the edification of their terrestrial acquaintances? The "nobleman languishing in Dartmoor" and the late claimant to the British throne had each of them countless adherents who firmly believed in their ridiculous pretensions. Not a murderer is hanged without being regarded as a martyr by a number of persons who are ready to believe the most preposterous theory of defence in preference to what appears to ordinary minds overwhelming testimony of guilt. But in most of these cases believing is a comparatively inexpensive luxury. The witnesses in the Furneaux case lay claim to a higher kind of gullibility than this. Many of them profess to have ruined themselves completely, and even to have borrowed largely from confiding friends, for the sake of supplying with funds a young nobleman who went about in female attire. But then it is only fair to add, in extenuation, their loyalty to their sovereign somewhat marred their judgment, for they were assured (so they say) that this species of disguise was assumed by order of the Queen, and naturally they would not question the propriety of Her Majesty's commands. By far the most interesting feature of the case is the strange picture it presents of the overpowering influence of great names upon the weak mind. Accepting the evidence of the witnesses as true so far as it tells against themselves, we see that their ordinary powers of discernment were completely blinded the moment they believed themselves connected with the aristocracy. They claim to have been duped by one who represented herself to be a young nobleman of avowedly disreputable antecedents, but whose connection with the "upper ten" was sufficient recommendation in their eyes to cover all her sins. When any one of them was troubled with doubts as to his own prudence in selling his property and handing over the results to his newly-found aristocratic acquaintance, a letter signed " Guelph" or "Defender of the Faith" removed all his misgivings, and sent him on his way rejoicing at the opportunity which had been offered to him—of assisting one possessing such intimate relations with great personages. What reassuring evidence all this furnishes to the Tory nobility against the levelling tendency of the present day, which they so often and so loudly deplore. The House of Lords itself, one would think, must feel secure against radical encroachment so long as even lawyers and money-lenders are ready to sacrifice their wordly possessions for the sake of maintaining in luxury a younger son who wears petticoats by the command of the