must be added" Here take in such and such replies, remarks, answers, observations, &c. &c. on all the objections against Phrenology."

The next objection which I noticed was, that "the cultivators of science" were said to be merely "men of this generation." The vindicator is pleased to say that this is a creation of my "distempered fancy," and adds, "we are bold to deny that he ever heard the cultivators of science, as such, stigmatised as men of this generation.""

I agree with the vindicator that he is "bold to deny" this. What says Dr Chalmers in the passage above quoted? Why, he accuses the "intolerant professors" of believing that the truths of science were hostile to the truths of the Bible,--implying, of course, that they must believe the cultivators of science, as such, to be "men of this generation." But the vindicator's boldness extends so far as to contradict himself. He says (p. 9), " If science be unaccompanied by religion [i. e. science strictly as such], and gains an entrance into minds which have not previously been visited by religion [still as such alone], we behold nothing but melancholy examples of the apostolical aphorism, that knowledge puffeth up, and thereby engenders a spirit of hostility to the Gospel." So that, in plain English, the vindicator does himself stigmatise the cultivators of science (in the strictest sense) as such, as being "men of this generation." This he even does a second time, again contradicting himself, when he speaks (p. 9) of "scientific men of eminence" (i. e. cultivators of science as such), as " deists,” i. e. in his view men of this generation."

66

The third objection which I combated was, that "Whether Phrenology was true or not, it was inconsistent with revelation, and therefore dangerous." The vindicator asks when I ever heard any rational being maintain this. That the beings were "rational" I certainly never said or imagined; but that the vindicator considers them "rational," may be inferred from the fact of his advocating their views. To recur to Dr Chalmers as last quoted-he accuses his brethren of believing philosophy (he is speaking of the truths of philosophy) to be inconsistent with revelation. Dr Buckland* does also; and, as usual, the vindicator answers himself. He insinuates that the "scientific" men of eminence (therefore "rational") have become deists through their science. It follows that they must consider that science "inconsistent with revelation" as interpreted by the vindicator. Again, the writer in the Presbyterian Magazine insists upon "philosophy being tested by revelation." Now, if Phrenology could be disproved by facts, he would not have been driven to such an

* "Remarks," p. 12, note.

unphilosophical position. If, on the other hand, its established results were consistent with his views of revelation, he would obviously have said so. The inference from his language therefore is, that he considers Phrenology true, and yet inconsistent with his views of revelation. I might go on quoting authorities, and proving these positions; but it would be idle to go further.

Of course I do not notice any of the weak or unphrenological opinions or statements in the pamphlet, which do not concern me. I leave the vindicator to go on contradicting himself;-as, for example, where he lays it down that " to the mind unenlightened by science the Bible in most cases is not a dead letter, and then adds, that during the dark ages of the Church there were only "a few" who were truly religious;—that is, the Bible in most cases was a dead letter.

66

H. G. WRIGHT.

ARTICLE XI.

CASE OF JOHN LINN, A PARRICIDE. Or, 616.

SEVERAL years ago a cast of the head of John Linn of Belfast, who had been found guilty of parricide, was presented to the Phrenological Society by Dr M'Donnell of that town; and as the head is a remarkable one, we were induced to make inquiry into the history and character of the criminal. Through the kindness of an intelligent phrenologist of Belfast, Mr John Grattan, by whom the case was carefully investigated, we are enabled to lay the following particulars before our readers.

The circumstances of the crime for which Linn was tried are thus narrated in The Belfast Commercial Chronicle of 1st September 1833 :

"About one o'clock the inhabitants near the house of William Linn, turner and wheelwright in Smithfield, were alarmed by screams and shouts from the house. John Linn, commonly known by the name of Lippy Linn, a tall powerful man, was observed with a hatchet destroying the furniture of the house, breaking the windows, crockery, &c.; and two women and two boys rushed out of the house, exclaiming that John had mur dered his father. The boys ran to the Court-house, where the magistrates were sitting, and a party of police was immediately desired to proceed to the spot. At this time they found the door bolted; the unfortunate wretch had retreated to the back houses, and was, in his phrensy, destroying all the windows he could come at with the hatchet. On going up a few steps into a small workshop, they found the old man lying on his face. weltering in his blood, and quite dead. The murderer, after

smashing everything he could meet, proceeded to the top of a wall, but finally surrendered himself, and was taken before the magistrates, where he freely acknowledged having taken his father's life, and was forthwith committed to the county jail. On the inquest, Arthur Murphy, who worked as a journeyman with the deceased, deposed, that about one o'clock he and an apprentice were at work in the shop with the deceased, when John Linn came in; and when he had stood for a little while, he asked for his hammer and tools; his father said he had none belonging to him. John then took down the lark's cage and said it was his, for he had bought seed for it; the deceased said he would pay him for the seed. John then threw the cage with the bird in it upon the floor, and jumping upon it smashed it to pieces; he then took up the hatchet and struck his father, who was not saying or doing any thing at the time.* The deceased was a man universally esteemed in his station, and manifested great affection towards his wretched son; who was of very irregular habits, and subject to sudden gusts of ungovernable passion. We have heard that since his committal the wretched man has evinced great contrition, and solemnly declares, that when he went to his father's, he had not the most remote intention of hurting him, far less of taking his life. When in custody, and about to be removed, he asked permission to go and take leave of his father, for he had killed him.

"March 18. 1833. Carrickfergus Court-house.-Arthur Murphy, after giving evidence much to the same effect as the foregoing, was cross-examined. Was in Linn's workshop when prisoner came in; he appeared in a very wild state, foaming at the mouth, and quite deranged-looking; saw him the Saturday before, and heard him shouting that he was mad; saw him once in Liverpool in the same state, he was singing, and all at once turned round and said he would go and kill some man; locked the door then and kept him in. Rachel Peel examined. The prisoner is her brother; has known him for some time back to have exhibited symptoms of derangement of mind; he had at one time a fracture of the head, about three years ago last November; he said at one time that his father had purchased poison, and that she (witness) was to poison his sons; the Saturday before the death, she observed something particular in his conduct; he came into the workshop and said, Lord Jesus! I am going mad; bound a handkerchief round his head, and then jumped up and said he would destroy them all; witness ran out and fainted. The prisoner was acquitted on the ground of insanity."

* It may be necessary to remark, that, after striking his father with the hatchet, he then stabbed him with a chisel, and that it was the latter wound which caused his death; but the details are unimportant, and too long to be copied.

Mr Grattan gives the result of his own inquiries in the following sentences:

"In addition to these facts, extracted from a public journal, I learned from Mr Wales, the surgeon who attended the inquest, and who knew Linn well, that he was a celebrated pugilist, cock-fighter, &c. He also informed me, that after the murder he asked Linn what could have induced him to commit such an act, and that Linn replied, his father had not dealt fairly by him; implying that he had given away property which should have been his; whereas the fact was he had been particularly liberal to him.

ceived it, and as nearly as possible in the very words. On the subject of religion, he and the Doctor had had a conversation, in which he stated himself to be an orthodox presbyterian, and intimately acquainted with the tenets of that sect; indeed, he considered himself quite an expert theologian, and offered to discuss the merits of the five articles with any one.

"When Mr Wales and I went to the asylum, we found him engraving a seal which he had formed, with considerable neatness and ingenuity, out of common limestone, by means of a pen-knife.

"He at first appeared to dislike being recognised, but when Mr Wales made himself known to him, he exhibited no repugnance to enter into conversation with us. He said he always loved his father, and would have done any thing for him; but that his sister had turned him, the father, against him, and was the cause of their quarrelling, and getting him put out of the house, where he thought he had as much right to be as any of them.

"He expressed great anxiety to obtain his liberty, that he might provide by his own industry for his children, instead of having them, as they are at present, in the poor-house. He was most anxious to convince Mr Wales that he was not insane, and had been perfectly free from any thing even like temporary insanity since his admission into the asylum, in consequence, as he himself stated, of having nothing to excite him, and never being allowed to get spirituous drink; indeed, he expressed himself so convinced of its uncontrollable influence upon him, that he said he would never again taste it. From the size of his Constructiveness, I was induced to ask him whether he was a good workman; upon which he mentioned, as a proof of his dexterity, that he had frequently cleared twelve shillings a-day at his business. He expressed great affection for his wife and children. As we were surrounded by several of the inmates of the establishment, and as the defect in his lip rendered it difficult for us to understand what he said, we were unable to converse as freely as might have been wished: our information derived from himself, therefore, is but trifling; as far as it goes, however, it corroborates the testimony of the others. He did not like to be questioned about the unfortunate occurrence, as he uniformly termed it, and we could not with any delicacy press him upon the subject. At present his conduct is correct, and he is described as being obliging, amiable, and particularly industrious, never choosing to be idle. He was extraordinarily solicitous to contradict an erroneous report which he stated had been circulated concerning him, and which charged him with having torn and destroyed the Bible before that unfortunate occurrence.' He repeated this several times, evidently regarding it as a more heinous offence than the crime of which he was actually guilty

"A person of the name of Gibson, a very intelligent man,