pressed with this conviction, which the experience of every day tended to confirm, I found myself reduced to the alternative of prelecting all my life on subjects which no effort of mine could render useful to my pupils, or of making a thorough and radical change in the subject-matter of my lectures."

Professor Jardine informs us, that he did make "a thorough and radical change in the subject-matter of his lectures" accordingly; and no doubt he introduced great improvements: but you may easily ascertain by inquiring of the students of the latest session, whether the foregoing observations are not, in a great degree, still applicable even to the most improved systems of Logic taught in the Scottish Universities. On this subject, indeed, Mr. Stewart speaks emphatically. Alluding to the long prevalence of Aristotle's Logic, he remarks, that “the empire founded by this philosopher continued one and undivided for the period of two thousand years; and, even at this day, fallen as it is from its former grandeur, a few faithful and devoted veterans, shut up in its remaining for tresses, still bid proud defiance in their master's name to all the arrayed strength of human reason." "As to Logic in general," he observes, "according to my idea of it, it is an art yet in its infancy, and to the future advancement of which it is no more possible to fix a limit, than to the future progress of human knowledge." Again, he remarks, that "to speak in the actual state of the world of a complete system of logic (if by that word is meant any thing different from the logic of the schools) betrays an inattention to the object at which it aims, and to the progressive career of the human mind; but, above all, it betrays an overweening estimate of the little which logicians have hitherto done, when compared with the magnitude of the task which they have left to their successors." In accordance with these remarks, you will observe, that in the testimonials presented to you in favor of the champions of the existing school, no allusion is made to the utility of the doctrines, either in Metaphysics or in Logic.

The questions for you to determine, therefore, are, Whether the teaching of Logic in your University shall be continued on a system which the experience of ages has demonstrated to be nearly useless, and which has been condemned as barren by the highest authorities in mental philosophy; Or whether you will endeavor to introduce a new system, founded on the improvements in mental science which have recently taken placerational, practical, and in harmony with the spirit of the age. If the former be your determination, then you should by all means reject my pretensions; but if you aim at the latter alternative, I very respectfully solicit your suffrages, because I appear before you as the representative

of a new mental philosophy, capable of affording a basis for a sound system of Logic; and I have endeavored to prove by evidence in my testimonials that that system is founded in nature, and applicable to practice.

In forming your judgment on these two questions, it may not be without advantage to bear in mind, that the history of all scientific discoveries establishes the melancholy fact, that philosophers educated in erroneous systems have in general pertinaciously adhered to them, in contempt equally of the dictates of observation, and of mathematical demonstration. You cannot, therefore, reasonably expect that the masters of the expiring system should, in the present instance, view with any favorable eye, the pretensions of the new. Experience also shows that it is equally true in philosophy as in the affairs of ordinary life, that "coming events cast their shadows before;" in other words, that the opinions of the young present the best index of the doctrines which will prevail in the next generation. There is no instance in the records of science, of the authority of great names, even although sustained by the energy of civil power, proving successful in permanently supporting error in opposition to truth; and neither is there an example of any established University, which had at an early period embraced a great discovery in science, having had occasion afterwards to repent of having done so.

In applying these historical facts as principles of judgment to the present case, I would respectfully remind you that Phrenology is now in the forty-eighth year of its promulgation, and that during the whole period of its history, it has been opposed, ridiculed, misrepresented, and contemned by almost all the men whose intellectual reputations rested on the basis of the philosophy which it is extinguishing; and that nevertheless it has steadily advanced in public estimation, until at present, even in weighing the mere authority of names against names, it stands in Europe on equality with the older systems, and in America it has unquestionably the ascendancy. Farther, in looking at the state of opinion in your own city on the subject, it is certain that while you will hear Phrenology condemned by the more aged patrons of the ancient school, you will find the young ardent inquirers into its doctrines. Your acute and learned member of Council, Bailie Macfarlan, will correct me if I am in error in stating, that in 1823, when he so ably and eloquently defended Phrenology in the Royal Medical Society in this city, he had scarcely any supporters; but that in proportion as he persevered, season after season, in lifting up his testimony in its favor, he found himself backed by a constantly increasing minority. And I am informed that now, so numerous are its adherents in that body, that questions touching its truth and merits are generally carried by majorities in its favor.

In nominating a Professor of Logic, you are providing a teacher for the young; and I very respectfully beg of you to consider whether it is probable that, with the testimonials in favor of Phrenology which have been presented to you in their hands, with the books and museums on the science before their eyes, and with the constant advocacy of its truth by a highly influential portion of the periodical press, the students of the rising generation will readily bow to the authority of a philosophy which never satisfied men of practical understandings, even when it was supported by public opinion and the highest names, but which is now generally proclaimed as being useless, and which is brought into competition with a newer, a better, and a highly practical system of truth.

I have been told that, to rest my claims on the truth and utility of Phrenology, is to deprive myself of the benefit which I might otherwise have derived from the talents which I have displayed, and the beneficial uses which I have made of them, however humble these may be. I profess myself altogether incapable of comprehending this objection. I found my pretensions on Phrenology, because I entertain the sincere conviction that no rational or useful system of Logic can be reared without its aid. If you have confidence in the judgment and good faith of the gentlemen who have honored me with testimonials, you have grave authority for admitting the reasonableness of this opinion. To reject my claims, therefore, because they are based on and bound up with Phrenology, would be simply to shut your eyes to doctrines which have been certified to you by men of the highest talents and philosophical reputation, as constituting the only basis of a sound system of Logic.

It may appear to savor of egotism in me to observe, further, that on your decision in the present instance will depend, to some considerable extent, the prosperity and reputation of your University for the next generation; but I venture to do so, because I speak not of my own importance, but of that of a great system of natural science, to the prosperity of the University of Edinburgh. As an individual, I am utterly insignificant; but if, in rejecting me, it shall be understood that you refuse to admit Phrenology as a science within your academic walls, then you may injure the institution over which you preside. Phrenology stands in much the same relation to the philosophy of mind and its applications, in which the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton stood to astronomy and physical science. It is calculated to remove mystic speculations, and to supplant them by facts and the sound inductions of reaIts first and greatest influence will be felt in leading to an important reformation in the subjects taught in classes dedicated to moral and intellectual science. Its next effect will extend to the improvement of

son.

education, rendering it at once philosophical and practical. But it will exert a still more extensive influence. Phrenology is the doctrine of the functions of the brain, and I feel and aver that if it were once admitted inte your University as science, Professors of Physiology might soon find it prudent to instruct their pupils in its principles, else they would fall behind their age. It is the foundation of the most rational views of insanity, and Professors of Medical Jurisprudence might find it proper to give effect to its doctrines, in preparing their pupils for judging of this form of disease. It affords an intelligible clue to the reciprocal influence of mind and body, and teachers of the Theory and Practice of Medicine might, I trust, be induced to avail themselves of its lights in their prelections. But while I say these things, permit me to assure you that, if placed in the Chair, it would be my earnest study, as it would be my duty and my interest, to avoid giving offence to any one; and I am persuaded that I could teach Logic on phrenological principles without doing so.

In short, were the new philosophy introduced into your University, a very few years would justify the wisdom of your decision; and you would maintain for your Seminary that pre-eminence as a seat of unfettered and liberal study, which it has already enjoyed, and which contributes so greatly to the fame and prosperity of the city.

On the other hand, if you shall shut your eyes to the pretensions of the new science, you will proclaim to the world that the University of Edinburgh is not disposed to take the lead in adopting the new lights of the age, and a short period may suffice to reveal to you a decline in its prosperity, which it may be extremely difficult to arrest.

I am aware of the criticisms to which I expose myself in making these remarks; but criticism has already done its worst on me, and I have nothing farther to fear from its severity. If I did not state to you truths, and truths of the utmost importance to the welfare of your University and city, I should be bound to submit to obloquy, because it would be merited; but if I merely present to you facts founded in nature, and endeavor to open your understandings to the perception of consequences which a few years may realize, I appeal to public opinion when enlightened by experience, to decide on the merits of the course which I have pursued. I have the honor to be, &c.

GEO. COMBE.

ARTICLE III.

REMARKS UPON THE FACULTIES OF LANGUAGE AND TUNE, AND THE SENSE OF HEARING.

BY J. M. BUCHANAN, M. D.

(Continued from page 276.)

From the analysis we have made, it appears that the faculty of Language, instead of being the single manifestation of one organ, is a compound faculty, connected in various degrees with the action of the whole intellectual group of organs. Of these, one of the most important is the organ of auricular perception, which, were we disposed to name it from its function, might be called the organ of Sound or Tone. We will then proceed to consider the subject of auricular perception and its cerebral organs.

In my first phrenological observations, I was annoyed by a difficulty in determining upon the degree of musical talent by the developement of the organs. Instead of finding a developement of the organ of Tune uniformly accompanied by musical talent, I have often found it well marked in persons who complained of being deficient in the capacity to learn tunes who were sometimes unable even to whistle a tune correctly; yet I found others with a moderate or small developement of Tune, displaying musical talent and singing or playing with facility upon any instrument they wished to use. Unwilling to discredit this portion of phrenology, the first conclusion to which such observations led me, was that I must be an imperfect observer, since unable to verify the conclusions of Gall and Spurzheim. Had the exceptions to the phrenological rule been few and obscure, I might have been content to explain them in this manner, but they presented themselves so frequently and palpably, that I could not evade their force. I found, too, that other phrenologists labored under the same difficulty, and that a good practical phrenologist had even refused to mark the developement of the organ of Tune on account of the uncertainties which he had discovered as to the function. I observed that the best practical phrenologists were frequently grossly mistaken in estimating the musical capacity of a stranger.

Finding it thus out of my power to verify the received theory, I was compelled to look to nature for the function of this organ. I found that it was fully developed in my own head, and that although incapable of executing any tune or recollecting all its notes, my ear was not deficient as to its other perceptions-on the contrary, I believed my power equal to or above the average as to hearing sounds and perceiving all their qual