408 
great stress on it, and to speak of it as 
“of great use.” These are his words 
(see Preface, p. vi.):—* The mathema- 
tics appear to nie of great use in estimat- 
ing the degrees of probability, a subject 
“which hitherto has not been compared 
(no more than the general rules of inter- 
retation) In any treatise of logic, or, at 
re very slightly noticed. 
P. 214, r. 409.—“ So chance, which 
properly denotes an unknown cause, or 
a known cause of an undesigned effect.” 
_ Now, Sir, 1 have somewhere met with 
this definition :—“* Chance is the known 
~effect of an unknown cause.” The con- 
trast between the two definitions is amus- 
ing, and shews us how much requires to 
be done before we can agree about defi- 
nition. { 
It would be useless for me to go thraugh 
the train of absurdities into which Dr. 
K. has been led, in order to make out his 
favourite hypothesis. 
’ I cannot, however, pass unnoticed his 
objections to Mr. Hume’s method of as- 
certaiming the weight of evidence, as ap- 
plied to the truth of miracles. Mr. H. is 
of opinion, that when contradictory evi- 
dence is compared, the furce of the supe- 
rior can be appreciated only by balan- 
eing it against the inferior. 
“Tf so (says Dr. K.), this absurdity 
would fellow (see vol. Il. p. 532, r. 628): 
that the credit of the most respectable 
witness would be destroyed by the oppo- 
sition of one whose credibility is doubt- 
ful; for, suppose the credibility of the 
one to be <5, and of the other only 
vo, then =P=35, which being below 
2, denotes improbability, or incredibi- 
lity.” 
With the trath of Mr. Hume’s opini- 
ons, as to miracles, neither the Doctor, 
nor you, Sir, nor myself, have any thing 
to do, on the consideration of the above 
method advised by Mr. H. What we 
have now to consider is, whether, accor- 
ding to his view of the subject, he was 
justified in saying, that when we deduct 
a lower from a higher number, the ba- 
lance will be in favour of the higher. 
Let us, for example, suppose that nine 
pounds are put inte one scale, and five 
pounds into the other—take five from 
nine (would say Mr, H.), and there re- 
mains four. Four pounds, therefore, is 
‘the balance in favour of the superior 
weight. No, says Dr. K. take five from 
nine pounds, and you must arrive at this 
absurd consequence, viz. that.the ba- 
hance is in favour of the five. 
Yeu will excuse me, Sir, from follow- 
2 
Remarks on Dr. Kirwan’s “* Logick.” 
[Fuly 1, 
ing the Doctor’s flim-flams (as‘nis calcu 
lations may well be termed) through their 
various mazes.. I shail stop here, and 
suggest to your readers the danger of hunt- 
ing after new opinions, of aiming at dis- 
coveries, and of affeeting singularity. 
My next object (which, though of in- 
ferior, is of some importance) shall he to 
select some of the most prominent gram- 
matical errors, and instances of the faulty 
construction of sentences; and if fam 
obliged to copy the Doctor’s words, be- 
fore I comment on them, my induce- 
ment wil be to save the reader the trou- 
ble of turning to the - different passages. 
Mere verbal criticism is not a very pleas- 
ing employment; but as the elements of 
reasoning are words, and words are part 
of grammar, and as the due arrangement 
of them in the construction of sentenees 
is within the province of logic, the con- 
sideration of them should not be theught 
_below our notice. 
In the dedication to Lord Norbury, al- 
ledced by the author to have heen writ- 
ten “ in testimony of the high estimation 
in which not on/y his private virtues, 
but partivularly the ability,” &c. 
IT believe, Sir, that the adverb only, 
in one memberof a sentence, requires in 
the other some word opposed to it, ora 
word expressive of addition or increase 
of number, in order to complete the 
sense. As, notonly private vertues, but 
public—not only friends, but even toes, 
&e. . 
See Preface, p. ii. for an example of 
loose construction :—“ For in which of 
these have not disputes arisen, or do not 
[disputes] still exist, or have not mistakes 
occurred, from inattention to some or 
other of the rules or ubservations which 
an exact treatise of logic should com- 
prise; many of which may be found in 
those already extant,” &e. I need not 
point out the defects in the above pas- 
sage. 
Page vii.—See the passage before 
quoted, beginning with “ The mathe- 
matics,” for a striking example of incor 
rectness. ° 
Page 25, r. 36.—‘* And we must fur- 
ther remark, that this connection may 
be more or less perfectly distinguished, 
even when closely attended to.” 
Would not one suppose the author 
means to express his surprise that au ob- 
ject should be better distinguished for 
being more closely examined? yet this 
sentence will bear no other interpreta- 
tion. 
Page 26,r.44.— Absolute-[ words] are 
those 
~ 
