220 



tion of the same reasoning to some other examples, not no- 

 ticed by Mr. Stewart, which he observed were better adapted 

 for illustration ; and then proceeded to notice briefly the ap- 

 plication of the same principles to the other examples adduced 

 by Mr. Stewart. 



He then reverted to an explanation of Mr. Stewart's and 

 of other writers, concerning the perception of the distance of 

 visible objects ; and after noticing the fallacy which it in- 

 volved, he showed it to be explicable by the same general 

 process as in the former cases. 



He next observed that the numerous errors arising from 

 the same law of habit might be made use of to illustrate or 

 prove the same conclusions ; and explained, at some length, 

 the illusion of faces and other visual phenomena framed by 

 the imagination. 



After several observations on the comparative difficulties 

 of Mr. Stewart's method and his own, the author noticed the 

 distinction between the previous cases, in which there is an 

 apparent character of combination, and others in which a 

 difficulty must seem to arise from continuity. He then went 

 at considerable length to apply the same I'easoning to the case 

 of the orator, as adduced by Mr. Stewart, and more fully de- 

 scribed by Lord Brougham. He lastly adverted to Mr. 

 Stewart's explanation of dreams, and showed that it involved 

 some important contradictions and inconsistencies ; and that, 

 contrary to Mr. Stewart's assertion, it implies a new law of 

 mind. He then showed that it could be explained by the 

 same method which he had already applied to the other ex- 

 amples. And after some explanations of the manner in which 

 the law of suggestion operated in dreams, he observed, in 

 conclusion, that Mr. Stewart had set out with a notion adapted 

 to lead him astray ; which he thought to be a subject of re- 

 gret, as the line of investigation which he had selected would 

 otherwise have offered a clearer and better evidenced founda- 



