[ 107 ] 



of chances of his telling truth, in any ratio greater than the ratio 

 of equality, the greater the number of concurrent witneffes, the 

 lefs will be the probability of the truth of their report ; becaufe 

 the greater will be the number of their combinations in falfe report 

 in proportion to the number of their coincidences in truth. Thus 

 if there be three witneffes, each of whofe credibility is meafured 

 by i, that is, if there be one chance only for the veracity, and 

 four chances for the falfhood of each, then will the improbability 

 of the truth of their report be meafured by ^'y. 



This conclufion, as Mons. Condorcet obferves, leads us to a 

 very important remark, which fhews how unfit numerous popular 

 affemblies are for deliberation; for fince in fuch affcmblies, when 

 we confider the ignorance and prejudices of the voters, we muft 

 eftimate the probability that each will vote right at lefs than an 

 even chance, it follows, that the more numerous the affembly, the 

 greater will be the probability that their decifions will be falfe. And 

 hence we perceive, what political evils muft follow from the deter- 

 minations of an ignorant democracy. But in a well informed and 

 impartial affembly, the more numerous the voters, the greater will 

 be the probability of the reditude of their decifions. 



Hence, by the way we may remark, that Dr. Hallcy's mode 

 of computing the probability of the report of concurrent witneffes 

 is erroneous. According to him, the calculation is to be made in 



O 2 the 



