We believe the reconciliation is not difficult. It lies in the fact that
while the _great_ and _direct_ frauds have been diminishing, the _small_
and _indirect_ frauds have been increasing: alike in variety and in
number. And this admission we take to be quite consistent with the
opinion that the standard of commercial morals is higher than it was.
For, if we omit, as excluded from the question, the penal
restraints--religious and legal--and ask what is the ultimate moral
restraint to the aggression of man on man, we find it to be--sympathy
with the pain inflicted. Now the keenness of the sympathy, depending on
the vividness with which this pain is realised, varies with the
conditions of the case. It may be active enough to check misdeeds which
will cause great suffering; and yet not be active enough to check
misdeeds which will cause but slight annoyance. While sufficiently acute
to prevent a man from doing that which will entail immediate injury on a
given person, it may not be sufficiently acute to prevent him from
doing that which will entail remote injuries on unknown persons. And we
find the facts to agree with this deduction, that the moral restraint
varies according to the clearness with which the evil consequences are
conceived. Many a one who would shrink from picking a pocket does not
scruple to adulterate his goods; and he who never dreams of passing base
coin, will yet be a party to joint-stock-bank deceptions. Hence, as we
say, the multiplication of the more subtle and complex forms of fraud,
is consistent with a general progress in morality; provided it is
accompanied with a decrease in the grosser forms of fraud.

But the question which most concerns us is, not whether the morals of
trade are better or worse than they have been, but rather--why are they
so bad? Why in this civilised state of ours, is there so much that
betrays the cunning selfishness of the savage? Why, after the careful