I may add that _all_ Catholic theologians with whom I am acquainted limit its use by requiring many external conditions: _v.gr._, that the secret to be preserved should be of importance; that the questioner should have no right to its knowledge, etc. In one word, that the possible damage to mutual confidence resulting from the hearer’s self-deception should be less than that which would certainly accrue from the revelation of a legitimate secret. No one feels more keenly than we do that to have resort to Equivocation is an evil rendered tolerable only in presence of a greater evil of the same nature; and I venture to say, from an intimate knowledge of my brother “religious,” that no one is less likely to recur to it, where only his own skin is concerned, than a Jesuit. Believe me, Yours very sincerely, George Canning, S.J.[A] [Footnote A: The above lucid explanation of the much and (_me judice_) stupidly maligned doctrine of Equivocation will place readers of this work, as well as the writer, under an obligation of gratitude to the Rev. George Canning, who is the Professor of Ethics at St. Mary’s Hall, Stonyhurst, so I am informed by the Rev. Bernard Boëdder, S.J., Professor of Natural Theology, at that seat of learning, whom I have had the honour of meeting in York on more than one occasion. “Wisdom builds her house for _all_ weathers.” But England, relying too much on a long course of prosperity in her ruling classes, and in the protected classes immediately beneath her ruling classes, has neglected the Truth and Justice contained in this eminently rational doctrine of Equivocation. The democracy must, and will, however, insist on amiable, self-contenting, self-pleasing delusions being speedily swept away. Reason and self-interest alike will compel and compass this. The question of Equivocation is not a question of Protestant _versus_ Catholic, but of Wise Noddle _versus_ Foolish Noddle. This is a distinct gain.] APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DEFINED AND DESCRIBED. Circumstantial Evidence is indirect, as distinct from direct evidence. It is likewise mediate, as distinct from immediate. Direct evidence is testimony that is a statement of what the witness himself has seen, heard, or perceived by the evidence of any one of his own five senses,[A] which testimony is directly given by a witness, to lead to the facts in issue, that is, the facts required to be proved in order to make out or to constitute the criminal case, or the civil cause of action, sought to be established, according to some rule of Law. [Footnote A: By sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch.] Indirect or mediate evidence is _inferred_ from a relatively minor fact or relatively minor facts already directly proved.