The same author adds that the theory of suggestion so explicitly maintained in the "Inquiry," is not repeated in the later work, the "Essays on the Intellectual Powers," and that therefore Reid may have become doubtful as to its tendency.

The term suggestion may not perhaps be found, but the theory that there is in perception a sign and a thing signified (which virtually implies it) is plainly re-asserted in the Essays. "Every different perception," he there says, "is conjoined with a sensation proper to it. to it. The one is the sign, the other the thing signified. They coalesce in the imagination." *

I have said that this phraseology is virtually the same as using the word suggestion, but it is in fact more objectionable, inasmuch as although suggestion may be explained to mean (awkwardly enough it is true) the original introduction of something into the mind, a sign cannot with any propriety be spoken of as signifying (and indeed cannot signify) any thing not previously known.

My own conclusion is that Reid while he retained his theory as first propounded, was utterly unconscious of its being in that shape at all inconsistent with holding a direct knowledge of the external world. He had not in fact a clear insight into the subject, and as a consequence held incompatible doctrines.

But a still more extraordinary unconsciousness of inconsistency in relation to the same question, appears to me to be exhibited by his learned editor, an examination of whose singular opinions on some points in the theory of perception, I will reserve for a separate letter.

Before taking leave of Dr. Reid, however, I must not omit to notice his supposition that by subverting as he claims to have done the doctrine of intermediate ideas as separate entities-third thingsin perception, he and those who took the same view with him, destroyed Berkeley's theory of Idealism.

This was a great mistake in which he was joined by Dugald Stewart, and to my surprise countenanced, in one part of his comments at least, by Sir Wm. Hamilton.*

Berkeley fully accorded with Reid that in perception there are only two entities, the percipient and that which is perceived; but while Reid following the common view regarded and called the perceived things, external objects, Berkeley called them ideas, the difference on the part of the latter

In reference to a passage in Reid overturning (as that writer declares) the whole ideal system, Sir Wm. Hamilton has the following note: "It only overturns that Idealism founded on the clumsy hypothesis of ideas being something different, both from the reality they represent, and from the mind contemplating their representation, and which also derives such ideas from without. This doctrine may subvert the Idealism of Berkeley, but it even supplies a basis for an Idealism like that of Fichte."— Reid's Works, p. 128.

being so far only nominal. The real difference was that he endowed his ideas with several peculiar attributes positive and negative (all fictitious) which could not be predicated of objects; and more especially assumed without any possible proof that in virtue of being ideas (i. e. really, in virtue of his calling them ideas) these entities could exist only when perceived. But he never taught that there are both objects and ideas. The subversion, therefore, (whether due to Reid or not) of the doctrine of intermediate ideas in perception as distinct entities-third things-left Berkeley's theory untouched. This was shown, indeed, by Dr. Thos. Brown. It is now, I think, generally admitted that Dr. Reid did not fully comprehend the theory which he assailed, and he certainly exhibited his misapprehension of it in a way which, it is to be regretted, exposed him to inevitable ridicule.*

I can by no means, however, concur in the judgment pronounced by a recent author, that the Inquiry into the Human Mind "is a very shallow and feeble performance."-See "Locke's Writings and Philosophy," by Edward Tagart, p. 31.

LETTER IV.

THE DOCTRINES OF SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON REGARDING PERCEPTION.

SIR WM. HAMILTON'S doctrines on the subject of perception appear to me even more singular and incongruous with each other than those of Dr. Reid, although they do not manifest the qualities just named on the same points, and the more recent writer seems as unconscious of any inconsistency in what he teaches as his predecessor.

In his edition of the Works of the latter he makes the following dogmatic assertion: "As not here present an immediate knowledge of an object distant in space is impossible."* Now mark the reason assigned: "For," he continues, "as beyond the sphere of our organs and faculties, it cannot be known by them in itself."

This is surely much like saying "it cannot be known because it cannot be known." What is meant by the sphere of our organs and faculties? To say that a distant object is beyond this sphere, according to the only interpretation of the phrase

* Works of Dr. Reid, edited by Sir Wm. Hamilton, p. 810.

which I can think of, seems to be at once begging the question.

But the most notable fallacy lurks in the term "immediate " when he affirms "an immediate knowledge of an object distant in space is impossible." He had previously characterized it as "a contradiction in terms."* A few words will suffice to show that it is neither one nor the other; and that the assertions just quoted involve a confusion of what is physically immediate with what is mentally immediate. As this distinction is exceedingly important I must take some pains to elucidate it.

It is allowed on all hands that a distant object cannot be known without a physical medium between the object and the percipient. In the case of all the senses we can trace the intermediation of physical agents such as light, air, and nerves. Even in cases where the object is in contact with the organ, as in feeling by the touch, the nerves which are always interposed may be strictly regarded as a material medium between the percipient and the object; as a substance, namely, which must be affected before perception ensues, but of whose affections requisite for that end we are insensible.

As all this is, I believe, uncontroverted, as physical intervention is universally admitted, we must consider the author before us to mean that there can

* Reid's Works, p. 305, note: "An immediate perception of things distant is a contradiction in terms."