vision; and
until the physiologist can prove (what has never yet been proven) an _a
priori_ necessity that our sensations must be where our bodies are, and
an _a priori_ absurdity in the contrary supposition, he must excuse us
for resolutely standing by the fact as we find it.

This is a view which admits of much discussion, and we would gladly
expatiate upon the subject, did time and space permit; but we must
content ourselves with winding up the present observations with the
accompanying diagram, which we think explains our view beyond the
possibility of a mistake.

A
B_a_ _a_C

Let A be the original synthesis, or indiscrimination of vision and its
sensations--of light and colours. Let _a_ be the visual sensations
locally associated by means of the touch with the tangible bodies C
_before_ vision is in any way associated with B--before, indeed, we have
any knowledge of the existence of B. Then let _a_, the general condition
on which the sensations, _after a time_, are found to depend, and in
virtue of which they are apprehended, be locally associated with B--the
eye discovered by means of the touch--and we have before us what we
cannot help regarding as a complete _rationale_ of the whole phenomena
and mysteries of vision. Now, the great difference between this view of
the subject and the views of it that have been taken by _every_ other
philosopher, consists in this, that whereas their explanations
invariably implicated the visual sensations _a_ with B from the very
first, thereby rendering it either impossible for them to be afterwards
associated with C, or possible only in virtue of some very extravagant
hypothesis--our explanation, on the contrary, proceeding on a simple
observation of the facts, and never implicating the sensations _a_ with
B at all, but associating them with C _a primordiis_, merely leaving to
be associated with B, _a_, a certain general condition that must be
complied with, in order that the sensations _a_ may be apprehended,--in
this way, we say, our explanation contrives to steer clear both of the
impossibility and the hypothesis.

We would just add by way of postscript to this article--which, perhaps,
ought itself to have been only a postscript--that with regard to Mr
Bailey's allegation of our having plagiarised one of his arguments,
merely turning the coat of it outside in, we can assure him that he is
labouring under a mistake. In our former paper