Thomas Howard, fourth duke of Norfolk, by his first wife, Mary Fitzalan, had Philip (jure matris), Earl of Arundel, who died 1595 attainted, and was succeeded by Thomas, created Earl of Norfolk. This last was father of Henry Frederick and grandfather of Charles Howard, of Greystock Castle, who married Mary, eldest daughter and coheiress of George Tattersall, of West Court, Finchampstead, and Stapleford, co. Wilts.
Charles Howard, as above, was the fourth brother of Henry, sixth Duke of Norfolk, which last was grandfather (through Thomas, his son, of Worksop) of Mary Howard, who married Walter Aston, fourth Baron Aston, of Forfar, in Scotland.
H. C. C.
I furnished a memoir of this famous soldier to the Gentleman's Magazine in 1833 or 1834.
G. Steinman Steinman.
Grammar in relation to Logic (Vol. viii., p. 514).—Mr. Ingleby evidently has but a superficial view of this doctrine, which is not only Dr. Latham's, but one, I apprehend, pretty well known to every Oxford undergraduate, viz. that, logically, conjunctions connect propositions, not words. By way of proving the falsity of it (which he says is demonstrable), he bids Dr. Latham "resolve this sentence: All men are either two-legged, one-legged, or no-legged:" and adds, "It cannot be done." I may inform him that the three categorical propositions, "A man is two-legged, or he is
one-legged, or he is no-legged," connected by their several copulas, are equivalent to and co-extensive with the disjunctive proposition which he instances.
Mr. Ingleby quotes Boole's Mathematical (?) Analysis of Logic in support of his opinion; but, from the following specimen of that work, it does not appear to be much of an authority. The author says:
"The proposition, Every animal is either rational or irrational, cannot be resolved into, Either every animal is rational or every animal is irrational. The former belongs to pure categoricals, the latter to hypotheticals."
Now the first sentence of this passage is an absurd truism; but the proposition in question can be resolved into—An animal is rational or it is irrational. Again, "the former does not belong to pure categoricals," it is simply disjunctive. Mr. Ingleby falls into the same error, and moreover seems not to be aware that a disjunctive proposition is at the same time hypothetical.