manifestations may otherwise be. In this instance we do not refer to power of intellect alone, as most persons do when speaking of the mind, but of mental character generally, the brain being the organ of the propensities and sentiments, which are the main springs of character, as well as of the perceptive and reasoning powers.

In the next place, if we take two individuals in whom the conditions above specified are preserved, and in whom all the mental organs are, as nearly as possible, of an equal size, except one, Ideality for example, and if one of the individuals (Dr Chalmers) has a development of it equal to 6% inches, and in the other (Mr Joseph Hume) the development is equal only to 5 inches, then, according to Phrenology, no cultivation, excitement, or activity, which does not infringe the conditions before stated, will render Mr Hume's manifestations of Ideality equal in power and intensity to those of Dr Chalmers. The same proposition may be repeated in regard to all the other organs and faculties; and it is simply this, that, ceteris paribus, size in the organ is a correct indication of power in the mental manifestations.

As then size is an indispensable requisite to power, no instance ought to occur of an individual, who, with a small brain, manifested clearly and unequivocally great force of character, animal, moral, and intellectual, such as belonged to Bruce, Buonaparte, or Fox; and such accordingly we state broadly to be the fact. The Phrenological Society possesses casts of the skulls of Bruce, Raphael, and La Fontaine, and they are all large. The busts and portraits of Lord Bacon, Shakspeare, Buonaparte, indicate large heads; and among living characters no individual has occurred to our observation who leaves a vivid impression of his own greatness upon the public mind, and who yet presents to their eyes only a small head. In like manner, no orator, sculptor, painter, or poet, who manifests Ideality in the highest intensity of vigour, is to be found in whom the organ of this faculty is small.

It is proper, however, next to advert to certain conditions which may co-exist in the brain along with size, and to at

tend to their effects. Size, we have said, is not the only requisite to the manifestations of great mental power; the brain must possess also a healthy constitution; and that degree of activity which is the usual accompaniment of health. Now, the brain, like other parts of the body, may be affected with certain diseases which do not diminish or increase its magnitude, and yet impair its functions; and in such cases great size may be present, and very imperfect manifestations appear; or it may be attacked with other diseases, such as inflammation, or any of those particular affections whose nature is unknown, but to which the name of mania is given in nosology, and which greatly exalt its action; and then very forcible manifestations may proceed from a brain comparatively small; but it is no less true, that when a larger brain is excited to the same degree by the same causes, the manifestations become increased in energy in proportion to the increase of size. These cases, therefore, form no valid objection to phrenology. The phrenologist ascertains, by previous inquiry, that the brain is in a state of health. If it is not, he makes the necessary limitations in drawing his conclusions.

In physiology, the function of any organ is ascertained by numerous and extensive observations; and, if exceptions to the common appearances present themselves, their causes are investigated. The fact, for example, that the eye and optic nerve are necessary for vision is ascertained thus. In every case in which sight is enjoyed, that nerve and the eye are possessed; and in every case in which the structure of both is destroyed, vision is lost; but we cannot add, that in every instance of apparent soundness of the nerve and eye, vision must necessarily be present; because both of those organs are liable to diseases which impair the function without producing any perceptible change of the structure. Cases, for example, of total or partial blindness, arising from amaurosis, occasionally occur, in which no distinguishable marks of disease can be found, either in the eye during life, or in the optic nerve after death; but no physiologist thence concludes that these parts are not ne

cessary to vision. Having found them present in all cases where sight was enjoyed, and having observed vision to be lost in all cases of destruction of their structure, he founds his belief in the function of the parts on these facts, and feels it to rest on a firm basis; and as he knows that diseases may affect organs without rendering alteration of their structure visible to our eyes, he concludes, that in all instances in which the power is lost, the parts being possessed, the latter must be diseased; and no one questions the soundness of his logic. In like manner, from observing the power of motion to be intimately connected with muscular contraction, the physiologist calls the muscles the organs of motion. But, when by palsy they lose their contractile power, he infers, and is allowed to infer, although he may not be able to prove, that an important condition, that of health, is altered, and that some disease exists in the nervous system. All these observations are applicable to the brain. If we meet with powerful manifestations in 99 cases out of an hundred, large brains in the prime of life, and in the remaining one find them feeble, it is no stretch of principle to infer that in this instance disease must be present; and, on the other hand, it we observe comparatively weak manifestations to accompany 99 cases of small brains, and in one other case find them powerful, the conclusion is again legitimate, that here diseased excitement produces an unwonted exaltation of the function. The fairness of this reasoning is universally admitted when applied to other organs-to the muscles for instance. It is well known that muscular power is always, ceteris paribus, proportioned to the size of the muscle itself. It is also known that in insanity the muscular system often becomes excited so far as to act with triple energy, and to overbalance the efforts of two or three powerful men, who try to restrain the maniac. Thus a delicate female, apparently enfeebled by disease, has been known to have suddenly displayed more than masculine strength. No one, however, looks upon this fact as overturning the original proposition of size being, ceteris paribus, a measure of energy, because he knows that, if a

highly muscular man were subjected to an equal degree of excitement, he would require five or six instead of two or three men to restrain him. The true way to disprove our principle, then, is to bring a single unequivocal case of vigorous manifestation with manifest deficiency of organ and absence of disease. Such a case would overturn our science.

Another case, however, may be stated; suppose that in the skull of Gordon, the murderer of the pedlar boy, the measurement from Destructiveness to Destructiveness is 5} inches, and that in the skull of Raphael it is 5g. Here the size is greatest in Raphael, and yet the former was an atrocious murderer, and the latter an amiable man of genius. This, therefore, it may be said, constitutes an objection to phrenology. But if the principle be applied, that size, ceteris paribus, indicates power, it will shew its fallacy. In Gordon the organs of the moral sentiments and intellect are small, and hence that of Destructiveness is the largest in the brain. In Raphael the moral and intellectual organs are very large; and hence, in conformity with the above principle, Destructiveness predominated in the one, and amiable feeling and understanding in the other. Still, the dispositions of Raphael would be characterized by this faculty. It would communicate that warmth and vehemence of temper which are found only when it is large, although he did not abuse them like Gordon.

Another case may still be supposed. If, in each two individuals, the organs of propensity, sentiment, and intellect, are equally balanced, the general conduct of one may be vicious and that of another moral and religious. This we admit, but it forms no objection to our science. The question here is not one of power, for as much energy may be displayed in vice as in virtue, but it is one of direction merely. Now, in cases where an equal development of all the organs exists, direction depends on external influences, and then no phrenologist pretends to tell to what objects the faculties have been directed, by merely observing the size of the organs. Before conversion St Paul manifested Combative-ness, Destructiveness, and Veneration, in persecuting Chris

tians to death, for the supposed glory of God; after this change Veneration was still directed to the same object, but Combativeness and Destructiveness were then manifested in dauntless and energetic preaching of Christ crucified. In both instances Combativeness and Destructiveness performed their natural functions; for, without a large endowment of these propensities, St Paul could no more have displayed the moral courage and fervour of temperament, which characterized him after conversion, than he could have persecuted without them before it. In the one instance they were abused, in the other legitimately directed; but there was no change of radical function. On this subject we refer to an Essay on Combativeness, Destructiveness, and Secretiveness, by Mr W. Scott, in the Phrenological Transactions, and to an Essay on the Harmony of Phrenology with the Scripture Doctrine of Conversion, by Mr G. Lyon, in the Christian Instructor. To found a valid objection to phrenology, it would be necessary to shew an instance in which an individual, in whom certain organs were very small, became, in consequence of education, conversion, or any other natural cause, which does not infringe the conditions before laid down, precisely similar in character to another in whom the same organs were very large, and who was exposed to the same influence, or vice versa; in short, to shew that by these external influences any of the faculties can be supplied if wanting, or eradicated if possessed. If such instances exist, we have never seen them. The utmost extent to which the power or will of man extends, is to direct the manifestations of his faculties to certain objects in preference to others, or to restrain them from abuse, but not to change their natural constitution, or to rid himself of their existence. Man is beset by the frailties and evil-tendencies of human nature after conversion and education, as before them, which is just to say, that the lower propensities continue to exist and to perform their functions. After these influences have operated, abuses may be less habitually indulged in than in the previous state; but the ene