REASONING. 



particulars; but we are now concluding from particulars ob 

 served, to other particulars which are not, as in the simple 

 case, seen to resemble them in the material points, but inferred 

 to do so, because resembling them in something else, which 

 we have been led by quite a different set of instances to con 

 sider as a mark of the former resemblance. 



This first example of a train of reasoning is still extremely 

 simple, the series consisting of only two syllogisms. The fol 

 lowing is somewhat more complicated : No government, 

 which earnestly seeks the good of its subjects, is likely to 

 be overthrown ; some particular government earnestly seeks 

 the good of its subjects, therefore it is not likely to be over 

 thrown. The major premise in this argument we shall suppose 

 not to be derived from considerations a priori, but to be a 

 generalization from history, which, whether correct or errone 

 ous, must have been founded on observation of governments 

 concerning whose desire of the good of their subjects there 

 was no doubt. It hrs been found, or thought to be found, 

 that these were not easily overthrown, and it has been 

 deemed that those instances warranted an extension of the 

 same predicate to any and every government which resembles 

 them in the attribute of desiring earnestly the good of its 

 subjects. But does the government in question thus resemble 

 them ? This may be debated pro and con by many argu 

 ments, and must, in any case, be proved by another induc 

 tion ; for we cannot directly observe the sentiments and 

 desires of the persons who carry on the government. To 

 prove the minor, therefore, we require an argument in this 

 form : Every government which acts in a certain manner, 

 desires the good of its subjects ; the supposed government 

 acts in that particular manner, therefore it desires the good 

 of its subjects. But is it true that the government acts in 

 the manner supposed? This minor also may require proof; 

 still another induction, as thus : What is asserted by intel 

 ligent and disinterested witnesses, may be believed to be 

 true; that the government acts in this manner, is asserted by 

 such witnesses, therefore it may be believed to be true. The 

 argument hence consists of three steps. Having the evidence 



