tation on the Progress of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences, pronounced the same judgment, and disparaged Bacon's method as Mr. Mill does, by saying that it ignored the process which in the advanced stage of the sciences becomes the most important and effective. Whereas, what Mr. Mill and his forerunners in the error call deduction, is not deduction, a demonstrative process, at all, but is what Bacon means by the descending scale of induction, being in fact a hypothetical and not an apodictic process, and is sometimes, as we have already shown, called the synthetical process of induction. The blunder of Mr. Mill is thus a double one; first, in supposing the process to be deduction when it is not; secondly, in supposing that Bacon excluded it from his method. The truth is, Bacon strode with such colossal steps along the paths of philosophy, that but few have been able to step in his exact footprints, and of these few Mr. Mill is not one, as his numerous misapprehensions of Bacon's method show.

But the most mischievous error which derationalizes Mr. Mill's logic, is the notion, that "Deduction is the great scientific work of the present and future ages ;" and that "a revolution is peaceably and progressively effecting itself in philosophy, the reverse of that to which Bacon has attached his name." This doctrine, assuming as it does, that the highest generalities have been reached, evinces a narrowness of comprehension, which of itself would put Mr. Mill below any very high elevation as a thinker; but when it is also a broad contradiction of the fundamental doctrine of his system of logic, which resolves deduction into induction, Mr. Mill stands revealed as a thinker who does not understand himself, but crosses his own path in his exposition of doctrines; and the best refutation is to leave him in the entanglement of his own contradictions.

Induction has been also signally corrupted by Dr. Whewell, in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. The inductive process, according to Dr. Whewell, consists in selecting conceptions which exist in the mind anterior to all experience, and by these binding together the objects of observation, in conformity with certain relations subsisting between the percepts derived from the objects, and the conceptions or ideas of colligation. The operation proceeds by trying, first, one conception, or idea of colligation, and then another, until the right one is found. Now, if the process of induction were that of binding phenomena together by certain innate ideas or conceptions, as Whewell contends, it would be just as easy to find the proper idea of colligation on seeing a few phenomena, as on seeing many. Because it seems sufficiently manifest, that a number of instances outside of the mind could in no way enable us any, more readily to find the idea of colligation amidst the multitude of such, which, ex hypothesi, exist in the mind, to bind together the given instances, than the given instances

themselves would. For, in the given instances themselves, the fitness of the idea of colligation must appear; and yet, the inductive inference or idea of colligation is only suggested by many instances. In this truth alone, is found a sufficient refutation of Whewell's theory of the idea of colligation.

The tendency of this doctrine of Dr. Whewell's, is to set up in the mind a physical standard of things, and thus commute the subjective with the objective. The doctrine springs out of a misunderstanding of the manner in which the mind comes by concepts, or, as Dr. Whewell improperly calls them, conceptions. The mind cannot embrace many objects at once; it must single out one, and, when this is done, all others are excluded. The product of the mind, when attention is thus given to one object only, is a percept. But the mind strives to comprehend many objects also. It, therefore, by comparing objects, discovers similarities between them, and it dwells upon the characters which constitute their similarity to the exclusion of the characters which constitute their dissimilarity, and identifies the similarities, and expresses the identification by a general term. The product of the mind, in such identification of similarities, is a concept. Now, Dr. Whewell's ideas of colligation are only these concepts empirically formed from observation; and the colligation of which he speaks is done in the very act of conception-is, in fact, the concept itself. The concept thus formed may then be used in binding together similar objects or phenomena. His doctrine of ideas of colligation is, therefore, a gross absurdity, which vitiates his whole philosophy, and, together with other similar errors, degrades him to a low level as an expounder of logical philosophy. In truth, Dr. Whewell is as crude and confused a thinker as ever aspired with such laborious ambition to be a philosopher.

The philosophy of the Absolute and Infinite, has, too, its own pretended method, called the ontological method. In this philosophy, logic, in any proper sense, is done away with. Assuming a faculty of intellectual intuition, by which the absolute and the infinite are immediately perceived, it repudiates altogether as beneath the high purposes of philosophy, the grovelling method of induction. Its method of investigation, if it can be called so, is not a process of inference founded upon evidence, but is an immediate intuition, where reasoning becomes only tracing, intellectually, the order of creation as it proceeded by evolution from its primordial element of absolute being. This method claims to evolve all human knowledge, and all that is knowable, out of one fundamental entity, in which subject and object, God and man, Creator and creature, are identified. Its process of evolution is identical with the process of creation. As creation is the process of Almighty thought, resulting in all that exists, so human thought, in the ontological method, is the similar process of a finite mind,

resulting in the knowledge of all that exists-the same process of the finite mind being subordinated to result only in knowledge, while that of the infinite results in creation.

Such is as articulate a statement as we are able to give of the method of a philosophy which commutes the nescience of man with the omniscience of God; and which, when sifted to the bottom, is found to be an antithesis of the broadest contradictions. True to the spirit of this philosophy, Schwegler has, in his history, altogether ignored logic, and does not even name it in his account of the philosophy of Aristotle.

Such is the state of philosophy, resulting from both the Baconian and Cartesian movements. The great Scotch philosopher, Sir William Hamilton, who lately died, had begun a reclamation of philosophy, which will, in time, raise it to a higher elevation than it has yet attained. We hail the auspicious influence destined to be exerted by his labours. But this is not the occasion to consider his philosophy.

We have said nothing of philosophy in America; because, as yet, the various European systems are struggling for a foothold here. We are somewhat in the condition of ancient Alexandria, where all doctrines of the world commingled; but we believe that America is destined to achieve great glory in the high argument of philosophy.

We hope that this article will furnish a vantage ground, from which the reader can see that the progress of philosophy consists of a consecutive series of discussions, elicited more or less by the circumstances of successive epochs; and that no analysis of human thought can afford any clue to a necessary course of development of the doctrines, and consequently of the history of philosophy, as Idealism contends.

SOIL RENOVATOR,

OR

CHEMICAL SALTS, SALTS AND GUANO, PLASTER, &c.

The successful results of the above chemical Compound, and its great superiority over every other manure, for the production of COTTON and CORN, has been so clearly demonstrated heretofore, that it is deemed unnecessary to do more at present than to give a few facts as to its value as a fertilizer. 1st. With it poor lands can be made to yield equally with rich and virgin soil. 2d. It affords durable improvement to the soil; and last, but not least, it is cheaper and of more value than even Peruvian guano.

The following letter from an eminent planter, near Beaufort, S. C., will no doubt be read with interest by plauters and farmers generally.

NEAR BEAUFORT, October 20, 1854.

John Kettlewell, Esq.: Dear Sir,―The season has come round once more for providing for another crop, and I therefore write to inform you what quantity of Renovator I would like to get for next season. I applied all of the 300 barrels of it on this plantation and the adjoining one belonging to the estate of E. N. Chisolm, and mostly to Long Stapled Cotton. Circumstances prevented me from making any quantity of our plantation manures last year; therefore most of the cotton was manured with the Renovator-one barre! per acre as usual, and up to the late gale of the 8th September, the prospect was very promising indeed, and my crop was, I think, never more so; but the tide rose so high that all of my cotton fields were covered by it, cutting down my crop to about one-fourth part only of what I would have made otherwise. On the adjoining plantation, the lands being higher, only a small part was covered by the tide, so that the loss is much less, but still only about half a crop will be made. I can see very plainly, on that plantation, the effect of the Renovator that was applied the year before the last, although the whole field has this year been manured with the Renovator, and that only; thus convincing me that for cotton it has proved both a quick and also a durable manure. On my own crop, one line across two field's that were heavily manured last year with unusually good compost manure, were this year planted in cotton again without any manure, while all the rest of the fields had one barrel per acre of the Renovator applied, and the result was that the lines leit unmanured were very perceptibly inferior to the rest of the fields, thus proving that it is a good manure for cotton. I made this experiment for the purpose of satisfying some friends who thought, as the land was very good, the good crop last year might be owing to the strength of the land, and not to the effect of the manure. I think, also, that I can distinctly perceive a very improved growth of grass and weeds on lands manured last year with the Renovator and planted, but rested this year, thus showing that it is good for the land as well as for the crops. Further observations of experiments with Guano tend to confirm me in my previous impression that guano causes growth of the cotton plant without anything like proportionate increase of fruit, while the Renovator gives increased growth with increased fruit, and I cannot think that adding Guano to the Renovator has any other effect than to increase the cost. I know that I differ from others who think much better of Guano than I do, but I am conscious of no prejudice, and speak only the truth in this matter.

Yours truly,

The Chemical Salts or Renovator..
Guano and Salts-half and half..

One third Guano and two thirds Salts..
One fourth Guano and three fourths Salts

CASH in Baltimore, the buyer paying all other expenses.

All orders must come through my only and sole Agents, Messrs. RHETT & ROBSON, of Charleston, for the State of South Carolina, and Messrs. N. A. HARDEE & CO., of Savannah, for Georgia, and through either for any other State.

JOHN KETTLEWELL.

We have been placed under great obligations to our brethren of the Press for the frequent and favourable Editorials they have penned in behalf of the SOUTHERN QUARTERLY REVIEW.

But, as the pecuniary condition of the work is by no means such as we anticipated, and in view of contingencies that may occur, we regard it proper to deal candidly and openly with its patrons.

We took possession of the title of the REVIEW last winter, and secured for its Editorial management the talent and services of one of the ripest scholars of the present age (the Rev. Dr. THORNWELL), who has spared no effort to procure the coöperation of many master minds, and the two numbers which have appeared under his direction have been assigned a character second to no other periodical now published.

Our correspondents are paid $3.00 per page, for every page of matter published in the REVIEW, and we have laboured to make it all that its friends would have it. But (and we regret to state the fact), we have not realised over $600 upon the present volume, barely sufficient to pay for the paper upon which the REVIEW is printed.

We have distributed 1,300 copies of each number of the REVIEW to subscribers, which ought to have realised for us $6,500, and thus place the work on a firm basis.

The present number is submitted as a specimen, and if it should unfortunately turn out that the friends of the enterprise have determined not to sustain it, by continuing to withhold the subscription price, we will be forced to yield to the pressure, and abandon the work as soon as the volume is completed.

If those who have received the REVIEW the present year, could be induced to forward us one-half the subscription price, we would be encouraged to go on; but when it is known that our receipts have amounted only to about $600, and that we have paid to authors, printers, and others engaged upon the work, $1,450, the reader will easily discover that it is worse than folly for us to continue the publication.

THIS IS THE LAST APPEAL WE INTEND TO MAKE FOR THE REVIEW. If its friends are determined that it shall die, we must submit, and close its pages before we become seriously involved.

E. H. BRITTON & CO.