exists in the human mind, and Mr Owen does not admit such a feeling. We are constrained to rank a tendency to destroy, and another to combat, among the primitive powers, while Mr Owen conceives these propensities to be adventitious. We hold secretiveness to be natural, while he maintains the disposition to conceal to be the result of irrational treatment in youth. Now, suppose, what is the truth, that both Owenites and phrenologists ardently desire to conduct mankind to the greatest possible happiness of which their nature is susceptible, how different will be the means that will appear adequate, according to the views entertained on the above points; while, at the same time, upon the judicious choice and employment of the means, will depend altogether the probabilities of success!

The primitive constitution of the mind is not a point to be taken for granted, or passed over as of no importance, but ought to form a fundamental element in all our reasonings, and in all our schemes, for the improvement of the race. If the phrenologists are well founded in believing, that Combativeness, Destructiveness, Acquisitiveness, and Secretiveness exist, it will be impossible, by the influence of circumstances, to eradicate them from the mind, and no scheme for the melioration of the species will succeed which does not admit their existence, and provide either for their gratification or adequate restraint. If we proceed on the notion that they are not natural, we shall be led to treat them with neglect, till they burst forth and overwhelm all our schemes. If, on the other hand, we allow their existence, but expect completely to subdue them, then our system must embrace means for inducing men to practise selfdenial and restraint, and in this respect differ widely from institutions framed on the principles of unlimited indulg

ence.

Mr Owen's leading principle is, "that the character of

*No innate feeling of acquisitiveness, farther than is really necessary for supplying, in the best manner, all our natural wants and rational desires.-O.

66

man is, without a single exception, always formed for "him; that it may be, and is chiefly, created by his pre"decessors; that they give him, or may give him, his ideas " and habits, which are the POWERS that govern and direct "his conduct." (Essays on the Formation of Character, p. 83.) According to phrenology, the origin of human character is different. Nature has implanted certain animal propensities, moral sentiments, and knowing and reflecting faculties in the mind, and connected each with a particular organ. Each is susceptible of spontaneous activity, and it may be called into action also by external excitement. Desires and aversions take their origin from the activity of the propensities and sentiments, and intellectual ideas from that of the knowing and reflecting powers. Thus, if in any individual the organ of Acquisitiveness is adequately developed, it may become spontaneously active, and the faculty attached to it will then generate desires for wealth, or other objects capable of accumulation. The sentiment of Ideality may become active in a similar way, and then the mind will be spontaneously filled with brilliant and magnificent emotions; or if Combativeness be excited, the mind may be inspired with a passion for war.

According to phrenology, then, ideas and habits are not the "POWERS which govern and direct the conduct;" their influence is this:-If a boy possess a strong natural Acquisitiveness, and his father be a merchant, and inculcate on him the advantages of wealth, the " ideas and habits" thus communicated may direct the propensity to seek indulgence in commercial pursuits. If the youth, on the other hand, possess the same Acquisitiveness, with little self-love, and great love of approbation, and live among philosophers, who prize highly collections in natural history, the "ideas" he receives from them may turn his Acquisitiveness towards the formation of a museum. If in another child Combativeness were very powerful, and he were placed within the influence of soldiers, he might be led by the "ideas" received from them to indulge in the profession of arms: or, on the other hand,

*

if he heard only of the contentions of the bar, he might, his other faculties permitting, be induced, by this stock of ideas, to seek its gratification in forensic disputation. Mr Owen, however, appears to imagine, that by the simple communication of ideas, the fathers could, in any of these cases, have created a desire in the children, to be merchants, soldiers, or lawyers, indifferently,—a notion contradicted by every day's experience of life. He, indeed, is not so inconsistent as to affirm, that a boy naturally combative may be. made acquisitive, or vice versa; for he denies that such natural tendencies exist. Viewing the mind, however, as a very plastic instrument, he conceives it quite possible to make any boy a soldier, lawyer, or divine, by merely communicating to him habits and ideas. In D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature, there is an anecdote of the "Fairfaxes," which forcibly illustrates how widely such views differ from actual nature. "The old Lord Thomas Fairfax, one day found "the Archbishop (of York, in James the 1st's reign) very "melancholy, and inquired the reason of his Grace's pen"siveness. My Lord,' said the Archbishop, I have great "❝reason of sorrow with respect to my sons; one of whom "has wit and no grace, another grace but no wit.' Your "case,' replied Lord Fairfax is not singular. I am also "sadly disappointed in my sons. One I sent into the "Netherlands to train him up a soldier, and he makes a "tolerable country justice, but a mere coward at fighting. † My next I sent to Cambridge, and he proves a good "lawyer, but a mere dunce at divinity ; and my youngest

66 6

By sound ideas, and good habits, the fathers might have so formed the judgment and inclinations of their sons, that these habits and ideas would have inclined them to prefer temperance, kindness, and industry in some useful employment, to the vices which are opposed to these virtues.-O.

+ This disposition would spring from large cautiousness and conscientiousness, with a deficiency of combativeness, and probably of firmness and destructiveness.

This indicates veneration deficient, and probably combativeness, which fits for disputation, along with intellect fully developed.

"I sent to the Inns of Court, and he is good at divinity, "but nobody at law.' ”*

66

According to phrenological principles, then, the character of an individual is the result of his natural endowment of propensities, sentiments, and intellectual faculties, modified by education, and all external influences, which have operated upon them. This, we admit, is also Mr Owen's doctrine in words; for in his first letter explanatory of his views, he says, that human nature, like each distinct species of ani"mal nature, is always composed of the same general propensities, faculties, and qualities, but that these differ in degree and combination, in every individual of the human "race." But, in the first place, this is at variance with the doctrine above quoted from his Essays; and, secondly, as already observed, he does not think it necessary to ascertain what these primitive propensities are, in which he admits individuals to differ, and in his general argument, he proceeds as if they had no existence, or, at least, as if they were entirely plastic to his will.

As, however, we admit the influence of modifying causes, it is proper to explain to what extent we conceive them to operate. Our doctrine on this point may be embodied in three propositions, which appear so self-evident, that we forbear offering any argument in support of them. First, We cannot eradicate any propensity, sentiment, or intellectual faculty implanted by nature. Secondly, We cannot essentially change the character of any natural feeling,† so as to convert acquisitiveness into benevolence, or combativeness into veneration; and, thirdly, our efforts are limited to restraining the different faculties from improper manifestations, and to directing them to legitimate and beneficial indulgence.

• This character would result from veneration, hope, and benevolence largely developed, and probably combativeness, and firmness deficient.

+ Unless changing the feeling of veneration from the governing power of the universe, to what in the East is called "Devil-Worship," be changing its character.-O.

Phrenology shews, that man possesses animal propensities, moral sentiments and intellect, and that, ceteris paribus, these powers act with a degree of energy corresponding to the size of their respective organs. To use an illustration brought forward by the Rev. Mr Singer, in his reply to Mr Owen at Dublin, on March 18, 1823: "Adam had two sons, "one was Cain, and the other Abel." The phrenologist would account for the difference of character between these two individuals, by supposing Abel to have possessed a large development of the organs of intellect and moral sentiments, and a small or moderate endowment of the organs of the lower propensities; and Cain exactly the reverse. Both being exposed to the same external modifying causes, Abel would be led, by the spontaneous activity of his faculties, to religious and peaceful exercises; Cain, by the impulse of his animal feelings, to jealousy, hatred, revenge; and the catastrophe of the murder would ensue as a natural result. We use this as an illustration merely of our position, that mo ral evil springs from abuses of the animal propensities of human nature, when not regulated by moral sentiment and directed by intellect. Observation shews, that some individuals are born with so great a preponderance of the first over the two latter classes, that they are constitutionally prone to immoral and prejudicial conduct.

According to Mr Owen, however, moral evil seems to be without a cause. "Each human being,” says he, 66 comes "into the world a passive compound, and, in some respects, "unlike every other individual of his species." If the first human being was a passive compound at creation, when did he or the race become active? If each child is at birth a passive compound, why do parents experience such great difficulties in modifying their dispositions? In short, we are carried back to the question, which we represented as lying at the base of the argument, What is human nature IN ITSELF? Mr Owen represents it as a passive,* we, on the other

* A passive compound, which can move in no direction, till it be acted