ral thousands of human beings, who are impelled, as it were, by an irresistible necessity, to the bars of the tribunals, and toward the sentences of condemnation which there await them. These conclusions flow directly from the principle already so often stated in this work, that effects are in proportion to their causes, and that the effects remain the same if the causes which have produced them do not vary.”*

In the section entitled, "On the influence of Instruction, of Professions, and of Climate on the tendency to Crime,” Mons. Quetelet presents the preceding table.†

Tables are also given in the same form for each department of France and Belgium, and Mons. Quetelet sums up the results in the following words:

"1. The greatest number of crimes against persons and property take place in the departments which traverse or border on the Rhone, the Rhine, and the Seine, at least in their navigable portions.

2. The smallest number of crimes against persons and property are committed in the central departments of France, in those which are situated in the west, toward the ocean, from the Lower Alps to the Channel, and those which traverse toward the north, the Somme, the Oise, and the Meuse.

"3. The shores of the Mediterranean and neighbouring departments show, other things being equal, a more marked tendency toward crimes against the person, and the northern part of France toward crimes against property.

"After having established these facts, if we seek to mount up to the causes which produce them, we are at once arrested by numerous obstacles. Indeed, the causes which influence crimes are so numerous and so various, that it becomes almost impossible to assign to each its due degree of importance. It frequently happens, also, that causes which appeared highly influential, disappear before others, to which one scarcely dedicated a thought at first. I have particularly experienced this in actual researches. Perhaps I was too much preoccupied with the influence generally allowed to education as a means of extinguishing the propensity to crime. It appears to me that the common error on this subject arises from the expectation of finding less crime in a country because more children in it are sent to school, or because a greater proportion of the common people are capable of reading and writing. Account should rather be taken of the extent of moral instruction; because frequently the education which is received in schools affords only additional facilities for committing crime."> "Poverty also is generally regarded as leading to crime; nevertheless, the department de la Creuse, one of the poorest in France, is that which presents, in every respect, the greatest morality. In like manner, in the Low Countries the most moral province is that of Luxembourg, where the greatest poverty reigns. It is necessary, however, to define what is meant by the word poverty-which is used here in a sense that may be regarded as improper. A province is not poor because it contains less wealth than another, if its inhabitants, like those in Luxembourg, are sober and active. If, by their labour, they succeed in providing securely for their wants and satisfying their taste, (which are the more moderate in respect that inequality of fortune is less common, and offers fewer temptations,) they may properly be regarded as enjoying a modest *Sur L'Homme, &c., tome ii., † Lib. Cit., tome ii., p. 176.

p. 168.

Lib. Cit., tome ii., p. 197. +"Mons. Guerry has arrived almost at the same time with me at similar conclusions, in his Essay Sur la Statistique Morale de la France,' p. 51, and he has expressed them nearly in the same terms. The results have been obtained also in England, in Germany, and in the United States."

competence. Poverty makes itself felt in provinces where great riches are amassed, as in Flanders, Holland, the department of the Seine, &c., and, above all, in manufacturing countries, where, by the least political commotion or obstruction in the usual outlets of commerce, thousands of individuals pass suddenly from a state of comfort to one of misery. The rapid transitions from one state to another give birth to crime; especially if the individuals who suffer are surrounded by objects of temptation, and find themselves excited by the constant spectacle of luxury, and of an inequality of fortune, which drives them to despair."

"It appears to me that one of the first distinctions to be made in this study, is that of the different races of men who inhabit the country which we have under our consideration. It is, as we shall immediately see, of the highest importance, although it is not that which first presents itself to our observation." These are wise and profound remarks, and I commend Mons. Quetelet for having directed attention to them, which he does by quoting the following passages from Malte Brun's Précis de la Géographie Universelle, livre 159? "The population of France," says Malte Brun, " belongs to three principal races: the Celtic, which constitutes nearly three-fifths of its inhabitants; the Germanic, which comprehends those of the ancient provinces of Flanders, of Alsace, and of a part of Lorraine; and the Pelasgian, (named by Dr. Spurzheim the Phenician,) spread in the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean and in Corsica. Changes of manners and the progress of civilization may alter the character of a people, but may not change it entirely." Mons. Quetelet proceeds to remark, that if we cast our eyes over the chart representing crimes against the person, this distinction of races makes itself felt in a very remarkable manner. "We see that the Pelasgian race, spread on the borders of the Mediterranean and in Corsica, is particularly addicted to crimes against the person. Among the German race, which extends over Alsace, the Duchy of the Lower Rhine, part of Lorraine, and of the Low Countries, where the dense population and abundance of property afford more opportunities for committing crime, and where the general use of intoxicating liquors more frequently occasions excesses, there are generally a great number of crimes against both property and person. The Batavians

and the Frisons, who also belong to the German race, are addicted particularly to crimes against property. Finally, the Celtic race appears to be the most moral of the three which we have considered, especially in regard to crimes against the person. It occupies the greater part of France, and the Walloon portion of Belgium. It appears, moreover, that frontier countries, where the races are intermixed, where there is generally more agitation, and where lines of custom-house officers are established, are the most liable to demoralization."

These remarks are deficient in precision, arising probably from imperfect knowledge in the author of the mental qualities which distinguish the different races. In estimating these qualities independently of cerebral organization, we are exposed to the necessity of expressing mere general ideas in vague language, instead of stating positive facts with philosophical precision. Mental differences arise from differences in cerebral size and proportions, and the influence of the brain on the dispositions is fundamental; that is to say, it determines the effect of external circumstances; and the real operation of these on the mental manifestations cannot be understood until the developement of the brain of the individual exposed to them be comprehended. Individuals possessing a predominating developement of the moral and intellectual organs, like Melancthon, (p. 86,) or Eustache, (p. 87,) rise superior to circumstances. No condition could be more unfavourable to virtuous conduct than that of Eustache, when he was a slave, associated with slaves engaged in a war of extermination

against their masters; yet such was the preserving power of a high moral and intellectual organization, that he nobly discharged his duty to both belligerents, and triumphed over temptations which would have proved irresistible to a less favourably constituted brain. On the other hand, when the moral and intellectual organs are remarkably deficient, and those of the propensities predominate, no external circumstances short of physical restraint are sufficient to preserve the individual from vicious practices. The heads of Hare, p. 85, Gottfried, p. 86, and Pope Alexander VI., p. 181, are examples of this combination, and their lives show an appetite for atrocious crime, which sought its own gratification in circumstances the most dissimilar. It is only on brains in which the three regions of propensity, sentiment, and intellect are nearly equally balanced, (of which Maxwell's head, p. 412, is a specimen,) that external circumstances produce a powerful and decided influence. All inquiries into the developement of the animal, moral, and intellectual faculties of nations, therefore, in which the influence of the brain is omitted, must necessarily be defective; and as this fact is one of great importance, I beg leave to support it by means of documents printed in the Appendix, No. IV., being Testimonials presented in 1836 by Sir G. S. Mackenzie to Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to induce his lordship to employ Phrenology in the classification of criminals.

At the time when I publish this edition no attention has been paid to that representation; but the time must come when facts such as are here expounded cannot fail to influence the conduct of practical men.

OBJECTIONS TO PHRENOLOGY CONSIDERED.

HAVING now considered the elements of Phrenology, I shall notice briefly some objections which have been urged against it. These shall be given, as nearly as possible, in the words of actual opponents, and an answer shall be subjoined.

Objection. The idea of ascribing different faculties to different parts of the brain is not new. Many authors did so before Dr. Gall; but their systems have fallen into disrepute, which proves that the doctrine is not true.

Answer.-Dr. Gall himself has called the attention of philosophers to the fact, that the idea alluded to is very ancient: he has given a history of previous opinions concerning the functions of the brain; and shown that different functions have been attributed to different parts of it for centuries past, while he has assigned reasons for these ideas falling into oblivion. Dr. Spurzheim in his works does the same; and, in the Phrenological Journal, No. vii., Art. 8, "An Historical Notice of early Opinions concerning the Brain" is given, accompanied with a plate of the head, showing it marked out into different organs in 1562: it is copied on page 40 of this work. The difference, however, between the mode of proceeding of prior authors and that of Dr. Gall is so great, that the different results are accounted for. Former speculators assigned to certain mental faculties local situations in the brain, on account of the supposed aptitude of the place to the faculty. Common sense, for example, was placed in the forehead, because it was near the eyes and nose; while memory was lodged in the cerebellum, because it lay like a store-house behind, to receive and accommodate all kinds of knowledge, till required to be brought forth for use. This was not philosophy. It was the human imagination constructing man, instead of the intellect observing how the Creator had constituted him. Dr. Gall acted on different principles. He did not assume any mental faculties, and neither did he assign them habitations in the brain according to his own fancy. On the contrary, he observed, first, the manifestations of mental talents and disposition; and,

secondly, the form of brain which accompanied each of these when strong and weak. He simply reported what Nature had done. There is the same difference between his method of proceeding and that of prior authors, as between those of Des Cartes and Newton; and hence it is equally intelligible, why he should be successful in discovering truth, while they invented only ingenious errors.

Objection. It is admitted by phrenologists, that the functions of some parts of the brain are undiscovered; when these are found out, they may give a new view of the uses of the parts to which certain functions are now ascribed, and, therefore, no certain conclusion can be drawn on the subject in the present state of phrenological observations, even supposing them to be all correct.

Answer. Each organ will always manifest its own faculty, whatever discoveries may be made in regard to other organs. The direction may be modified, but the function will remain unaltered. See page 405. Objection. It is ridiculous to suppose that the mind has thirty-five faculties; why not fifty-five? or a hundred and five? Besides, the phrenologists have been continually altering the number.

Answer. As well it may be said to be absurd, that we should possess exactly five senses; why not ten, or fifteen? The phrenologists deny all responsibility for the number of the faculties. They admit neither fewer nor a greater number than they find manifested in nature. Besides, authors on mental philosophy admit as many, and some more, faculties than the phrenologists. Lord Kames, for example, admits twenty of the phrenological faculties; while Mr. Dugald Stewart, in his system, ascribes more faculties to the mind than are enumerated in the phrenological works. The increase of the number of the phrenological faculties is easily accounted for. It has invariably been stated, that the functions of certain portions of the brain remain to be discovered; and, in proportion as this discovery proceeds, the list of mental powers will necessarily be augmented.

Objection." On opening the skull, and examining the brain toward the surface, where the organs are said to be situated, it seems to require no small share of creative fancy to see anything more than a number of almost similar convolutions, all composed of cineritious and medullary substance, very nearly in the same proportions, and all exhibiting as little difference in their form and structure as the convolutions of the intestine." phrenologist has ever yet observed the supposed line of distinction between them; and no phrenologist, therefore, has ventured, in the course of his dissections, to divide a hemisphere of the brain accurately into any such number of well-marked and specific organs."

"No

A

This objection was urged by the late Dr. John Barclay, and is answered at full length by Dr. A. Combe, in the Phrenological Transactions. summary only of his observations can be introduced here. First, Although the objection were literally true, it is not relevant; because it is an admitted principle of physiology, that the form and structure of an organ are not sufficient to convey an idea of its functions; no man who saw an eye, an ear, or a nostril, for the first time, (supposing it were possible for a man to be so situated,) could, merely by looking at it, infer its uses. The most expert anatomist had looked frequently and long upon a bundle of nervous fibres, enclosed in a common sheath, without discovering that one set of them was the organ of voluntary motion, and another that of feeling; on the contrary, from their similarity of appearance, these nerves had, for ages, been regarded as possessing similar functions. Nevertheless, Sir C. Bell and Magendie have demonstrated, by experiment, that they possess the distinct functions of feeling and motion. Sir C. Bell * See answer to Mr. Jeffrey in Phrenological Journal, vol. iv., p. 30.

has, more recently, proved, that another nerve, the use of which nobody had conjectured from its structure, serves to convey to the brain intimation of the state of the muscles, so that there is now evidence of the muscular system being supplied with three distinct sets of nerves, having separate functions, which was never conjectured from appearances. These discoveries are discussed on p. 55. It may, therefore, competently be proved, by observation, that different parts of the brain have distinct functions, although it were true that no difference of structure could be perceived. But, 2dly, it is not the fact that difference of appearance is not discoverable. It is easy to distinguish the anterior, the middle, and posterior lobes of the human brain from each other; and, were they shown separately to a skilful phrenological anatomist, he would never take one for the other. The mental manifestations are so different, according as one or other of these lobes predominates in size, that there is, even in this case, ample room for establishing the fundamental proposition, that different faculties are connected with different parts of the brain. Farther, many of the organs differ so decidedly in appearance, that they could be pointed out by it alone. Dr. Spurzheim says, that he "should never confound the organ of Amativeness with that of Philoprogenitiveness; nor Philoprogenitiveness with that of Secretiveness; nor the organ of the desire to acquire with that of Benevolence or Veneration;" and, after having seen Dr. Spurzheim's dissections of the brain, I bear my humble testimony to the truth of this assertion. Even an ordinary ob server, who takes a few good casts of the brain in his hand, may satisfy himself that the anterior lobe, for example, uniformly presents convolutions different in appearance, direction, and size from those of the middle lobe; while the latter, toward the coronal surface, uniformly presents convolutions differing in appearance and direction from those of the posterior lobe; and, above all, the cerebellum, or organ of Amativeness, is not only widely different in structure, but is separated by a strong mem. brane from all other organs, and can never be mistaken for any of them. Difference of appearance, therefore, being absolutely demonstrable, there is much better reason on the side of the phrenologists for presuming difference of function, than on that of the opponents for maintaining unity.

3dly, It is admitted that the organs are not perceived to be separated in the brain by strong lines of demarcation; but those persons who have either seen Dr. Spurzheim dissect a brain, or have attended minutely to its impressions on the skull, will support me in testifying, that the forms of the organs are distinguishable, and that the mapping out is founded in nature. To bring this to the test, the student has only to observe the appearance of any particular organ in a state of large developement, the surrounding organs being small; the form will then be distinctly visible. This subject is discussed at more length on pp. 91 and 92.

Objection. All parts of the brain have been injured or destroyed withat the mental faculties being affected.

Answer. The assertion is denied: there is no philosophical evidence for it. The subject is discussed at length by Dr. A. Combe, in the Phrenological Transactions, and in a subsequent part of this work. The objection is now generally abandoned by persons who have considered the cases, with the answers to them.

Objection.-Post-mortem examinations do not show diseased structure in the brain from Insanity.

Answer. They frequently do so; and when they do not, our ignorance of the appearances in health, and our want of power of discriminating minute changes of the structure, are the causes of our perceiving nothing different from health. Professor Christison observes, that "some poisons operate by irritating, destroying, or corroding the organ; while others