of Thomas Reid, D.D._ Edited by SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON,
Bart., Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in the University of
Edinburgh; with Copious Notes and Supplementary Dissertations by the
Editor. Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart, & Co. 1846.

[23] _Among the first._ He was not _the_ first. Berkeley had preceded
him in denouncing most unequivocally the whole theory of
representationism. The reason why Berkeley does not get the credit of
this is, because his performance is even more explicit and cogent than
his promise. He made no phrase about refuting the theory--he simply
refuted it. Reid _said_ the business--but Berkeley _did_ it. The two
greatest and most unaccountable blunders in the whole history of
philosophy are, probably Reid's allegations that Berkeley was a
representationist, and that he was an idealist; understanding by the
word _idealist_, one who denies the existence of a real external
universe. From every page of his writings, it is obvious that Berkeley
was neither the one of these nor the other, even in the remotest degree.

[24] _They err._--This, however, can scarcely be called an error. It is
the business of the sceptic at least to accept the principles generally
recognised, and to develop their conclusions, however absurd or
revolting. If the principles are false to begin with, that is no fault
of his, but of those at whose hands he received them.

[25] _Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind_. Part I. ch. i.

* * * * *

NOTE _in reference to an Article in our last Number, and to_ PROFESSOR
WILSON'S _Letter to the Editor of the Edinburgh Evening Courant, dated
30th June._

MESSRS BLACKWOOD regret to find that some observations regarding the
University of Edinburgh, contained in an article in their last Number,
should have occasioned feelings of pain and disapprobation in one of
their earliest and best supporters, Professor Wilson, of whose connexion
with the Magazine they are justly proud, and whose friendship they hope
ever to retain undiminished.

These observations did not at the time appear to them in the aspect in
which they now see that they may be regarded. They were fully assured of
the meaning and motives of the writer of the article in question, and
conscious themselves of the deepest respect and admiration for the
University of Edinburgh.

They are now, however, sensible that the passage referred to was liable
to objections which they know had no