Dickens, in 'Nicholas Nickleby,' gives the case of a certain lady, who, because she knew _one_ young milliner, who retained red cheeks and did not die of consumption, was immovably of opinion that all representations of the injurious effect of such sedentary occupation were false. It is ever so with the vulgar. Some one case has come under their notice, and it is in vain that you appeal to a chain of facts. They know nothing of induction--they know one case to the contrary, and that is enough. This error is the source of vulgar prejudice. Once teach men that truth does not lie in a single instance, but in a calculation in a balance of probabilities, and you rationalise them. 'The chapter of accidents [or single instances] is the Bible of the fool--it supplies him with a text against everything great, or good, or wise.'* * Times. Where others toil with philosophic force, Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course, Flings at your head convictions in the lump, And gains' remote conclusions with a jump.--Cowper, The first source of error is defective induction. We easily arrive at this point of examination by the questions we have proposed for use in the test of syllogism. Formerly, one syllogism was required to be defeated by another--we now attack a fallacy by induction. No false syllogism, says Biennan, can resist the inductive process of sifting particulars. I do not like thee. Dr. Fell, The reason why, I cannot tell-- But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Dr. Fell. This kind of thing will not do. Induction pursues the reasoner with an eternal _why_. A clear because to a clear why, is a demand that is never remitted in sound logic. Lord Melbourne, in giving his reason for his religion in the House of Lords, said it was the religion of his forefathers and that of his country, _therefore_, he would support the church. (Cheers from the opposition benches.) The Brahmin and Mussulman give the same reason for theirs. A logician in facts would have said, I hold and support my religion because it is _true_. What the standard of physical certainty is to facts, what axioms are to science, such is induction to syllogisms--it is the test of their correctness. Dr. Whately exhibits the following instance of a regularly expressed syllogism:-- Every dispensation of Providence is beneficial: Afflictions are dispensations of Providence, Therefore, they are beneficial.