referred to as illustrating our habit of entertaining opinions without any accurate memory of their grounds. This is, the estimates which we form of the characters of persons either in private or public life; our judgment of a man's character is derived from observing a number of successive acts, forming in the aggregate his general course of conduct. Now in proportion as our opportunities for observation are multiplied, our judgment is likely to be correct; but the facts from which our ultimate opinion is collected are so numerous, and often so trivial in themselves, that however sound the opinion may be, a large part of them necessarily soon vanish from the memory.

Being thus familiarized with the habit of entertaining an opinion without any present consciousness of its grounds, and from a mere remembrance of a process of investigation which we formerly went through, it is easy to transfer this origin of belief to another person, and to accept an opinion because that other person, (whom, moreover, we believe to be more competent to judge in the matter than ourselves) has gone through a similar process of investigation. Being accustomed to treat his former self as a sort of alter ego, and practically to divide his own identity, a man can easily apply the same mode of reference to another person. At all events, such a ground of belief is quite legitimate until we are able to examine the question for ourselves; and is far preferable to the alternative of a temporary suspension of belief, (which in practical matters may tend to serious evils,) or subjection to a sophistical advocate whose business it is to present one side of the case in a favourable point of view.

§ 5. In the preceding remarks, we have had chiefly

in view those general opinions which are termed speculative; and which, although they in fact ultimately determine men's conduct, yet have not an immediate bearing upon practice. The extensive department of Practice, however, also involves a constant succession of questions which cause a man to hesitate as to the course to be pursued, which give rise to diversity of opinions, and require the interference of a competent judge for their solution. In many of the affairs of private life, it is customary to follow the advice of professional and other persons having had an appropriate training and peculiar experience in the subject matter. Thus a phy

sician is consulted in questions of health, a lawyer in legal questions, an architect or engineer in questions of building, a gardener in questions of horticulture, a sailor in questions of navigation, and the like. There is likewise frequent occasion in the administration of justice, and the transaction of public business, for appealing to the opinion of persons of professional and special knowledge. In practical affairs, too, many opinions are formed upon the authority of the civil government, of public bodies and persons in conspicuous and responsible positions, of the heads of churches and religious bodies, of universities, academies, and places of learning, and of leaders of parties, and other voluntary associations.

For the present, we merely indicate these sources of authority, as influencing the opinions of numerous persons: and we merely point out, in general terms, the extent of the opinions accepted upon trust, and formed without independent investigation, or a knowledge of the grounds on which they rest. We shall now attempt to distinguish the cases in which this mode of forming opinions is properly applicable, and thus to determine the

proper province of authority. As a first step in this inquiry, it will be necessary to consider what are the marks by which trustworthy authority in matters of opinion may be recognised, and what are the qualifications of a competent guide in questions of speculative truth and practical conduct.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE MARKS OF TRUSTWORTHY AUTHORITY.

§ 1. IN the first chapter, we adverted to the received distinction between matters of fact and matters of opinion; and we showed that, although this distinction may be wanting in scientific precision, it nevertheless classifies the objects of belief in a manner suitable to the purposes of this essay. Before, therefore, we proceed to enumerate the marks of trustworthy authority in matters of opinion, it will be convenient to ascertain the marks of trustworthy testimony in matters of fact, and to compare the qualifications which render a person a credible witness with those which give weight to a person's opinion, as such, independently of his reasons.

The credibility of a witness to a fact seems to depend mainly on the four following conditions: viz.

1. That the fact fell within the range of his senses. 2. That he observed or attended to it.

3. That he possesses a fair amount of intelligence and memory.

4. That he is free from any sinister or misleading interest; or if not, that he is a person of ve

racity.

If a person was present at any event, so as to see or hear it; if he availed himself of his opportunity, so as to take note of what passed; if he has sufficient mental capacity to give an accurate report of the occurrence; and if he is not influenced by personal favour, or dislike, or fear, or the hope of gain, to misreport the fact; or if,

notwithstanding such influence, his own conscience and moral or religious principle, or the fear of public opinion, deters him from mendacity, such a person is a credible witness.

Upon considering these conditions for veracious testimony, we see that, with respect to statements of fact, everything depends on the source from which they emanate. They rest entirely on the credit due to known or assignable witnesses. But with arguments it is different. They have a probative force quite independent of the person by whom they are invented or propounded. They depend on the relation of premises and conclusion, of antecedent and consequent. For the truth of his premises the author of an argument may be personally responsible; but the sequence of his conclusion is a matter quite independent of his individual veracity. Logic, therefore, as a science, or art, of reasoning, has no concern with moral character; all arguments, as arguments, and reduced to their bare logical elements, are equally conclusive, whatever may be the source from which they proceed. Thus, in judicial proceedings, an advocate may argue with equal force on either side of a question, though without any personal conviction on the subject. He may handle arguments (as a fencer handles his sword) with the skill of a practised disputant, regarding them merely as instruments for the attainment of his end, but without making himself responsible for the soundness of his conclusions.* So a person may, as

* "Sir James Johnston happened to say that he paid no regard to arguments of counsel at the bar of the House of Commons, because they were paid for speaking. JOHNSON: Nay, sir, argument is argument. You cannot help paying regard to their arguments, if they are good. If it were testimony, you might disregard it, if you