ments equally indisputable. In the syllogism last
referred to, for example, or in any of those which we
previously constructed, is it not evident that the
conclusion may, to the person to whom the syllogism is
presented, be actually and _bona fide_ a new truth? Is
it not matter of daily experience that truth previously
undreamt of, facts which have not been, and cannot be,
directly observed, are arrived at by way of general
reasoning? We believe that the Duke of Wellington is
mortal. We do not know this by direct observation, since
he is not yet dead. If we were asked how, this being the
case, we know the Duke to be mortal, we should probably
answer, because all men are so. Here, therefore, we
arrive at the knowledge of a truth not (as yet)
susceptible of observation, by a reasoning which admits
of being exhibited in the following syllogism--

'All men are mortal.
The Duke of Wellington is a man;
THEREFORE
The Duke of Wellington is mortal.'

"And since a large portion of our knowledge is thus
acquired, logicians have persisted in representing the
syllogism as a process of inference or proof; although
none of them has cleared up the difficulty which arises
from the inconsistency between that assertion and the
principle, that if there be any thing in the conclusion
which was not already asserted in the premisses, the
argument is vicious. For it is impossible to attach any
serious scientific value to such a mere salvo, as the
distinction drawn between being involved _by
implication_ in the premisses, and being directly
asserted in them. When Archbishop Whately, for example,
says that the object of reasoning is 'merely to expand
and unfold the assertions wrapt up, as it were, and
implied in those with which we set out, and to bring a
person to perceive and acknowledge the full force of
that which he has admitted,' he does not, I think, meet
the real difficulty requiring to be explained; namely,
how it happens that a science like geometry _can_ be all
'wrapt up' in a few definitions and axioms. Nor does
this defence of the syllogism differ much from what its
assailants urge against it as an accusation, when they
charge it with being of no use except to those who seek
to press the consequence of an admission into which a