While princes and other very wealthy individuals
may be pillaged without much remorse to the
extent of six shillings, or even, perhaps, six and
eightpence. In doubtful cases, however, which
will, as the author of the Manual candidly
admits, be likely to arise in practice, generally
speaking, thefts under three and fourpence
should not be deemed "grave."

It is to be noted, however, that these prices
are not to regulate the filchings of a wife from
a husband, of a son from his father, or of a
servant from his master. Naturally enough, you
think, the turpitude of the act is in such cases
greater. Our Confessor's Manual decides
differently. In the two first cases, we are told—
that of a wife robbing her husband, and of a
son robbing his father—"according to the
most probable opinion," it takes more than
double the sums above named to reach the
gravity of sin. "Nevertheless," continues the
Manual, "not even in these cases can an
unbending rule be assigned, but they must
be judged rather according to the
circumstances; and the Confessor ought to examine if
the father or the husband be rich or poor, if he
have many sons" (the author omits to explain
whether an only son may be permitted a greater
or a less latitude of thievery than one of a
numerous family, and the unenlightened reader is
left wholly in doubt on this point,) "if he love
his wife and children" (here, again, we are left
in ignorance in which direction this circumstance
is to operate), "and if he make any profit out
of them."  In the case of servants, also, a
greater latitude may be allowed to venial
thieving than in the case of strangers.

The relation of master and servant gives rise
to some further rules of a very curious character,
laid down by our author in treating of the
subject of "compensation."

"What is compensation?" asks the Manual.
"Compensation is either 'compensation
proper,' or 'compensation improper.' The latter
is the recovery of the debt, without the
knowledge of the debtor. This arises when the
creditor takes secretly from the goods of the
debtor as much as is needed to pay his debt."

"Is this sort of compensation admissible?"

"It is always dangerous. It is, however,
lawful on the following conditions: 1, that the
debt be clear and undisputed; 2, that no more
than what is due be taken, and if possible in
goods of the same kind; 3, that the goods taken
be really those of the debtor, and that he be not
made to suffer loss in excess of the things so
taken; 4, that there be no danger of scandal"
(of getting found out, that is to say); "and
lastly, that the debtor be not made liable to pay
twice over." Also, before having recourse to
"compensation," the attempt should be made
to obtain what is due in the regular manner.
Indeed, this tentative cannot be omitted without
incurring venial sin in the practice of compensation,
unless the creditor is excused from it by
some circumstances, such as the expense, or the
danger of making enemies. I may steal from
my debtor to the amount of my debt, if I
object to the expense of suing him, or am afraid
of his resentment at my doing so.

"May the servant, then," it is asked in the
Manual, "who considers that his wages are too
small for the work he does, compensate himself
secretly?"

"If no price was bargained for, and the
servant at the time of hiring had in his own
mind the intention of serving without wages, he
may not. But if it was tacitly understood
that fair wages were to be given, and the master
does not give them, he may. If he agreed
with the master for the lowest market price,
then he may not, for he is bound to stand to his
bargain. If, however, he agreed for wages lower
than the lowest market price, not voluntarily,
but driven to do so by stress of necessity, then
he may compensate himself up to the lowest
market price. Unless, indeed, the master took
him into his house from pure charity; then he
may not. Unless, again, even in this case, the
master should find it impossible to get another
servant at the same price; and then again he
may. If, however, a servant of his own choice
increase his service, he has no right to help
himself to any compensation. But, if he does so
by the will either expressed or tacit of his
master, then he may do so."

In all the cases here decided on, and throughout
the Manual, it must be understood that the author
is in no wise giving any opinion of his own, but is
stating the decisions of the recognised masters of
casuistry, whom he constantly quotes, just as a
lawyer produces decisions from his books of
reports.

"In what cases," it is asked at another page
of the chapter on theft, "is a wife who steals
from her husband free from sin, and not bound
to restitution?"

"When what she takes is necessary for the
expenses of the family, or for her own food and
clothing, such, that is to say, as is rigorously
required by her station in life" (the marital
mind shudders at the thought of the female
mind's interpretation of this clause!), "or for
the purpose of giving moderate alms, or making
some small present, such as other ladies her
equals do, or to remunerate persons to whom her
husband is under obligation; or, further, for the
purpose of assisting her parents, her children by
a former marriage, her brothers or sisters who
may be in distress; on condition, however, that
at the death of her husband she take for her
portion so much less as she may have stolen for
these purposes."

The important distinction between "grave
sin" and "venial sin," and the precision of the
rule for counting the number of sins committed,
lead to the curious question whether many venial
sins will make up a grave sin; and there are in the
wonderful Manual some singular decisions upon
this point. In the matter of theft, for instance,
which we have seen so accurately tariffed, it is
curiously laid down, that if many little thefts
are committed on one victim at various times,
or on a variety of victims at one time, the
amount of them will make up "grave sin" when