exists between the degree of intelligence and any circumstance of size or structure in the brain." If these sources of information be excluded, it will be difficult for him to shew the reasonableness of the admission which he is disposed to make.

3dly, The next reason assigned by Professor Alison for not studying the evidence adduced by Gall and Spurzheim and their followers is, that their conclusions are not supported by "the results of experiments on animals." On this topic I shall simply refer to the following report of a discourse delivered by Sir Charles Bell before the Anatomical Section of the British Association, which appeared in the Scotsman newspaper of the 13th September, 1834,

"On Thursday and Friday there was a numerous attendance in the Anatomical Section, when Sir Charles Bell gave an interesting exposition of his views of the nervous system. He was the first to demonstrate what other physiologists had previously conjectured to be probable, viz. the existence of separate nerves of motion and of sensation. His statement was a recapitulation of his publication, and we did not observe that he added any new facts. In several particulars we were gratified by his, exposition, as marking the certain, although slow, progress of truth, Dr. Spurzheim, when he visted Edinburgh in 1816, maintained that the uses of the brain could not be philosophically ascertained by mutilations of the brains of animals; but he was ridiculed for saying so, and it was asserted that this was one of his numerous back-doors for escaping from adverse evidence. Flourens and Magendie in France, Sir William Hamilton here, and various other individuals, have, in the interval, performed numerous experiments on the brains of the lower creatures, and published results which have been extensively cited as evidence against phrenology. Yesterday, Sir Charles Bell explicitly stated, that he also had made such experiments, and had obtained no satisfactory results; and he then shewed why he had failed, and, why all, other experimenters must fail, who pursue this method of inquiry. These experiments always, and necessarily, involve a great shock, to the nervous system in general, and cannot be confined in their effects to the parts cut out. We may add-If we do not know what office the part performs in health, how can we know whether the function has ceased in consequence of the ablation or not? It may be true, that if we were to cut out the organ of Tune from the brain of a canary, the bird would never sing again; but if, in ignorance of what part is that organ, we were to cut out any other portion of the brain, with a view to discover it, we should be disappointed; because, whatever part we injured, the effect on its singing would always be the the same; it would cease to

sing, for the obvious reason that singing and a mangled brain are not compatible in nature. We rejoiced to hear this method of investigation renounced and condemned by so great an authority.”

4thly, The last reason of Professor Alison for not studying the evidence is, that the results derive no support or confirmation from “the effects of injury or disease of individual portions of the brain." Such a statement could proceed only from a person who had confined his reading to the report of non-phrenological or of anti-phrenological authors. In the Phrenological Journal, as well as in other phrenological publications, there are many well authenticated cases, shewing that these results receive the strongest confirmation and support from the effects of disease or injury of individual portions of the brain. Among the testimonials which I had the honor of presenting to the Town Council of Edinburgh in June and July, 1836, when I became a candidate for the Logic Chair, are several from physicians to lunatic asylums, who testify in direct opposition to the assumption made by Professor Alison. Sir W. C. Ellis, superintendent of the asylum at Hanwell, says: "It is unnecessary for him to inform Mr. Combe that, residing amongst 600 lunatics, no day passes over in which the truth of Phrenology is not exemplified." Dr. James Scott, surgeon to the Royal Hospital at Haslar, and medical superintendent of the Royal Naval Lunatic Asylum, says "As I have been for nearly ten years the medical attendant of the Lunatic Asylum in this great hospital, my opportunities, at least, of observing have been great indeed; and a daily intercourse with the unfortunate individuals entrusted to my care and management (whose number has never been less that thirty persons, and often many more) has firmly, because experimentally, convinced me that mental disorder and moral delinquency can be rationally combated only by the application of Phrenology." H. A. Galbraith, Esq., surgeon to the Glasgow Lunatic Asylum, says: "Situated as I am in the midst of a wide field for observation, more particularly in regard to disordered mental manifestations, I have been for several years past led to compare these with the phrenological developement of the individuals in whom they appeared; and from the result of numerous and well-marked instances, which have not only been known to me during a state of morbid activity, but from authentic accounts of the previous mental indications, I have not the least hesitation in declaring my firm belief in the general principles of phrenology." Many other certificates to a similar purport were brought forward by me on that occasion, and copies of the whole of them were presented by me to Professor Alison. I do not say that he was bound on that evidence to embrace phrenology; but, with all

deference, these testimonials render his statement that the results of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim's investigations derive no confirmation from "the effects of injury or disease of individual portions of the brain," not entirely credible, and scarcely leave him an adequate apology on this ground for delaying to "study the evidence" by a direct appeal to

nature.

While, however, Professor Alison practices a boundless caution and incredulity in regard to every fact, argument and doctrine brought forward by phrenologists, these mental qualities appear to forsake him when he considers facts, doctrines, or experiments brought forward by persons adverse to the science. He disbelieves in the cerebellum being the organ of Amativeness, because this is affirmed by Dr. Gall, and he believes in its office being to regulate "muscular motions," because this is asserted by Magendie and Flourens. I venture to ask him whether, in forming these opinions, he has read and candidly weighed the evidence adduced by Dr. Gall in his "Physiologie du Cerveau" on this point, and given due weight to the observations of Sir Charles Bell on the effects of mutilations of the brain, in considering the experiments of Flourens and Magendie? He knows that the nature of the details given by Gall prevents the phrenologists from printing them in merely popular works; but as a scientific enquirer he was bound to consider them in their original records. My suspicion is, that he has omitted "to study the evidence adduced by Gall and Spurzheim and their followers on this subject so carefully as perhaps he ought to have done," and by this supposition alone is it possible to account for his rejecting the one and embracing tho other opinion. Dr. Broussais, in his lecture on the functions of the cerebellum, reported in the Lancet of 30th July, 1836, accounts in a manner that appears to me satisfactory, for the effects of mutilations of the cerebellum on muscular motion, in perfect consistency with the functions ascribed to that organ by Dr. Gall.

Professor Alison remarks that "a book on intellectual or moral philosophy going in a few years through many editions, may be safely set down as a very superficial book." The same might be said of a book on any other science; yet Sir John Herschel's Discourse on Natural Philosophy has gone through many editions in a few years, and it is generally regarded as being a very profound and able work. Superficiality alone will not render a book on any subject acceptable to numerous readers: there must be something more. If the work address itself to strong existing prejudices, it may be temporarily successful and yet superficial. Beattie's Essay on Truth, as contrasted with Hume's Essays, is an example in point. But if a work oppose public opinion, VOL. III.-35.

if its author enjoyed no previous or extrinsic reputation, if it have been combated and dissected by men of the first talents, and if, nevertheless, it have constantly advanced in estimation and circulation, the conclusion does not inevitably follow that its success has been owing entirely to its superficiality. It may have advocated important truths in so clear and forcible a manner as to have interested numerous reflecting men, and on this account have been successful.

Professor Alison is pleased to conclude by expressing his opinion that "the injudicious pretensions of the present supporters of phrenology will ultimately be fatal to the personal reputation of most of our present phrenological authors." As I have the misfortune to be one of these authors, my remarks on this sentence must be received with due qualification; but as he has raised a question of pretensions, I leave the public to judge whether his condemnation, uttered avowedly without having studied the evidence, betokens greater or less modesty than my asseverations in favor of certain propositions, after having examined the proofs. Allowing for a great superiority in genius, perspicacity, and learning, on the side of Professor Alison, the study of the evidence may be reasonably allowed to add something to the probabilities of my assertions being true. This point, however, the public alone are competent to settle. It is probably that the contests which are now maintained on this subject, may ultimately prove fatal to the reputation either of the phrenological authors or of their opponents-which is more likely to suffer, it is not my province to decide. If I look forward with confidence to the ultimate decision, it is, first, because I have, in all humility and with all assiduity, studied the evidence adduced on the subject, and have endeavored, so far as in me lay, to advance no opinions which are not warranted by evidence; and, secondly, because I find that the more narrowly intelligent inquirers have examined into the facts, they are disposed to recognize the greater extent of truth in the doctrines which I advocate. All individuals who have examined them, entertain a more favorable opinion of these arguments than Professor Alison, who has not seen reason to do so. The history of science has presented some examples of men opposing great and important discoveries, whose reputations were not advanced in the estimation of posterity by such applications of their talents. A writer in the 94th number of the Edinburgh Review, alluding to the opponents of Harvey, says: "The discoverer of the circulation of the blood-a discovery which, if measured by its consequences on physiology and medicine, was the greatest ever made since physic was cultivated suffers no diminution of his reputation in our day, from the incredulity with which his doctrine was received by some, the effrontery

with which it was claimed by others, or the knavery with which it was attributed to former physiologists, by those who could not deny, and would not praise, it. The very names of these envious and dishonest enemies of Harvey are scarcely remembered; and the honor of this great discovery now rests, beyond all dispute, with the great philosopher who made it." If the great doctrines of phrenology as now taught shall be approved of by competent judges who have studied the evidence, posterity will probably be disposed to pronounce a similar judgment on the merits of those who have rejected and opposed them. If the doctrines, when thus tried, shall be found at variance with Nature, the reputation of all phrenological authors will most deservedly vanish.

Finally in judging of the merits of living phrenological authors, it is necessary to keep in view to what their pretensions relate. They maintain that Dr. Gall has discovered the functions of many particular parts of the brain, and that this discovery is of great importance in medicine and mental science. They offer to his memory the homage of a profound and sincere admiration, on account of his having made this valuable addition to human knowledge; and affirm that those individuals whose duty it is to study the evidence of his discovery and apply it, but who neglect to do so, are not deserving of esteem for this omission; but here their pretensions stop. They claim no merit in the discovery for themselves, they boast of no superiority of talents or of general learning over their adversaries; on the contrary, they allow to them every possible advantage on these points, and limit their own pretensions to the humble merit of having observed and interrogated nature on this subject, while their more gifted opponents, in the pride of their own greatness, have closed their understandings against "evidence" which obtrudes on their attention. To have pretended to less, would have been traitors to the cause of truth; that they have pretended to more, is an unjust accusation against them.

ARTICLE II.

PHRENOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF MRS. L. M. CHILD,

Author of Hobomok, The Rebels, The Mother's Book, The Girl's Book, The Frugal Housewife, Philothea, Appeal for that class of Americans called Africans, &c., &c. -Given by L. N. FOWLER, July 7th, 1841.

From curiosity Mrs. Child visited Mr. Fowler's office in New York, as a perfect stranger. He had no means whatever of conjecturing her