activity and great size appear to have been combined, it is impossible not to feel his lightness as very distinguishable from their strength and depth.

ARTICLE VIII.

ON THE PHRENOLOGICAL CAUSES OF THE DIFFERENT DEGREES OF LIBERTY ENJOYED BY DIFFERENT NATIONS.

PART II.

Causes of the INDdependence as distinguished from the LIBERTY of Nations.

In the former part of this essay I endeavoured to state and to illustrate the general principle, that nations are free, or, at least, susceptible of freedom, only as they possess the requisite endowment of the sentiments and the intellect, and that in every case free institutions are the effects, and not the causes of liberty.

Without farther recapitulation I proceed to lay down the following proposition,―That no nation which has long been enslaved can suddenly become free, and that such a phenomenon is without example in the history of the world. In illustrating this proposition it is necessary carefully to separate two things which, though essentially different, have often been confounded, I mean the independence, or freedom from a foreign yoke or influence, as contradistinguished from the liberty of a nation. From not attending to this distinction, nations have been supposed to become free when they have only become independent; and on this account it seems necessary that we should endeavour to investigate the phrenological causes which produce the one and the other.

The first requisite then, which would appear indispensable to produce independence, is, a certain general cerebral size;

without a considerable size in the brain, a nation can never maintain its independence, but, ceteris paribus, must inevitably fall before a nation more highly endowed in this respect. Hence, though the relative proportion of the organs in the British and Hindoo head had been similar, and only the size been different, it is clear, on phrenological principles, that the Hindoos, like the house of Saul, would have waxed weaker and weaker, while the British, like the house of David, would have waxed stronger and stronger. The superiority of the British in the organs of sentiment and intellect has no doubt accelerated the subjection of the Hindoos; but though their superiority had been in size alone, the result would in the end have been the same; and still we might have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of 40,000 Europeans maintaining an easy and a peaceable sway over 100,000,000 of Asiatics. It is evident, however, that relative, not absolute size is here supposed. The same Hindoos, when opposed to a people not better endowed in this respect than themselves, might have asserted that independence which they were unable to maintain against the superior cerebral size of the British. Relative size then being supposed, we have next to inquire into the combination of the primitive faculties which would give the desire to possess, and the capacity to maintain independence.

Self-esteem is, I apprehend, the chief element in the combination which inspires the love of independence; it is one of those faculties which cannot brook the lordly sway of a master; it produces the love of power, and therefore it cannot endure power in another when directed against itself; it naturally hates control, and prompts to resistance. Self-esteem, however, only gives the desire; but to the actual acquisition and possession of independence, Combativeness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and a good endowment of the knowing faculties, seem to be necessary; these faculties being, so to speak, the instruments which Self-esteem employs to obtain its object. Without Combativeness, Destructiveness, and an

adequate endowment of Firmness, a nation will be timid, fearful, and irresolute; they will be deficient in that courage and determination which these faculties inspire, and without which they will oppose a feeble resistance to an invading enemy. Individuality and the other knowing faculties are requisite for giving that power of observation and that capacity for arrangement, which are necessary in military operations, without some proficiency in which a nation would hold its independence by a very slender tenure.

But the combination we have now been considering is not, I apprehend, the only one which will produce independence; at least it is susceptible of modification; so that a nation with Self-esteem comparatively moderate, but with Love of Approbation decidedly large, will also seek independence. This faculty is of the same engrossing character as Self-esteem; and as two proud men, so two vain men, mutually repel each other like similar poles of a magnet. This element of opposition, which is common to both faculties, seems to be the principle which in both produces the desire of independence, and the hatred of every rival. Love of Approbation is but another name for ambition, and the first object of an ambitious people is to be independent of all others, and to exalt the glory of their own country beyond that of every other. To a people so constituted, nothing can be so galling as national servitude. To be obliged to swell the ranks of the armies of their masters, and to be denied all share in the glory which results from victories and conquests, while that glory is usurped by another, is to rob them of that which Love of Approbation prizes above life itself, and must stimulate them to make every effort to throw off the yoke which thus galls and afflicts them. In a word, let us only imagine the feelings of the French, if their beloved France were converted into a province of the British empire.

In treating of the independence as opposed to the liberty of nations, I must at present assume, that while a full endowment of the sentiments and intellect is necessary to the

attainment of the one, they are not necessary to the attainment of the other, and therefore I suppose them in the latter case to be possessed only in a moderate degree. Assuming this to be the fact, the next circumstance which would seem to increase or retard the acquisition of independence, is the degree in which a nation possesses the faculty of Secretiveness. It is essential to the attainment both of independence and of liberty, that the people should combine. It is too evident to require illustration, that without an united effort, no national object can be attained, and far less so great and important an object as national independence. But the power of combination in a people where the sentiments are deficient, is increased or diminished according to their development of Secretiveness. Large Secretiveness, combined with deficient Conscientiousness, naturally inspires distrust, and leads every man to suspect his neighbour. While every one is conscious to himself of sinister motives and purposes, and cannot know, or at least can know only with great difficulty, what are the real objects of others, suspicion and want of confidence are generated, and the power of combination is proportionably diminished. Where, on the contrary, Secretiveness is moderate, and Love of Approbation large, there is no concealment, because the power to conceal is deficient. Such a people, therefore, will, ceteris paribus, act right, because their wrong acting will be immediately discovered, and thus their Love of Approbation will, to a certain degree, produce effects similar to those which result from Conscientiousness. This openness of character is favourable to a general union or association, not only because each knows the worst of the other, but because the worst aberrations from right conduct are immediately detected, and receive their punishment in a wounded Love of Approbation. It may be objected to this theory, that as secrecy is of the utmost importance in a general confederacy, where its success depends not on the union of a few, but of the great body of the people, so a large endowment of the faculty of Secretiveness would seem not only not to

be disadvantageous, but to be positively and almost indispensably necessary. And, no doubt, this might be the case if the confederacy were once formed; but the point we are now considering is not how the people are to act when once they are united, but how the union itself is to be accomplished. It is premature to settle the operations of a campaign till the army is embodied, or while it is still doubtful whether it is possible to raise an army at all. Various, and perhaps insurmountable obstacles may arise to the successful prosecution of the war after the troops are collected, but still the first and most indispensable requisite is the troops themselves;-and, therefore, though a people may not after all succeed in the objects for the attainment of which they have united, yet their actual union is the first step, and whatever retards this first and most indispensable movement, must more than any thing else retard the great object which we suppose the people to have in view.

But though Secretiveness may thus, according to the degree in which it is possessed, either hinder or facilitate that union which we have seen to be necessary, the great springs to which I conceive independence must owe its rise are either Self-esteem or Love of Approbation, or both. But the characteristic nature of the independence, when actually obtained, will be different according as it springs from the one of these faculties or the other; and it may be worth while to state what these characteristic differences are. The people then, who have recovered their independence in consequence of large Self-esteem, will be prone to internal turbulence and rebellion, while the other will be comparatively tame and submissive. We have already seen that Self-esteem naturally hates control, and that it cannot endure power when directed against itself, from whatsoever quarter that power may come. It may be admitted, indeed, that a less degree of oppression, exercised by a foreign power, may excite a rebellion, than the same degree exercised by a sovereign of their own, because, in the former case, Love of Approbation is