galleries, nor to raise money upon such an object by mortgage or
otherwise.

Yet these works of art figure at a very high valuation, in the total
property of which the testator must divide one half amongst his
children, though in point of fact they yield no income whatever. But it
is of no use to divide them, since none of the heirs could be at liberty
to take them away nor realise their value in any manner.

The consequence is, that the principal heir, after the division has
taken place, finds himself the nominal master of certain enormously
valuable possessions, which in reality yield him nothing or next to
nothing. He also foresees that in the next generation the same state of
things will exist in a far higher degree, and that the position of the
head of the family will go from bad to worse until a crisis of some kind
takes place.

Such a case has recently occurred. A certain Roman prince is bankrupt.
The sale of his gallery would certainly relieve the pressure, and would
possibly free him from debt altogether. But neither he nor his creditors
can lay a finger upon the pictures, nor raise a centime upon them. This
man, therefore, is permanently reduced to penury, and his creditors are
large losers, while he is still _de jure_ and _de facto_ the owner of
property probably sufficient to cover all his obligations. Fortunately,
he chances to be childless, a fact consoling, perhaps, to the
philanthropist, but not especially so to the sufferer himself.

It is clear that the temptation to increase "distributable" property,
if one may coin such, an expression, is very great, and accounts for the
way in which many Roman gentlemen have rushed headlong into speculation,