ties.

His friends entertained the hope that the chair of the London College would have been offered to his acceptance; but they were disappointed: and he resolved, in consequence, to bid adieu to England, and to remain, for the remainder of his days, in quiet, unambitious comfort, with the relatives of his late wife, in Paris.

But he had scarcely settled in his new abode, when pressing invitations from America induced him to cross the Atlantic. He arrived, full of hope, at New York, and on the 17th September, 1832, commenced a general course of lectures at Boston. His class was exceedingly numerous and respectable, and he conceived the most sanguine expectations of spreading his doctrines from one extremity to the other of the new world, and of seeing it take permanent root over the most civilized portion of the habitable globe. But his latter end was at hand. "Sudden changes exposed him to cold, and an incautious transition from a warm lecture-room to the evening air was attended with debilitating effects. This variety of causes brought on, at first, a slight indisposition, which, if it had been attended to, might have been easily checked. Regarding his illness of less consequence than the delivery of his lectures, he exerted himself for several days; when prudence required an entire cessation from labour. This was the fatal step. Cold produced fever; and this imprudence settled the the fever in the system. He was averse to all active medical treatment from the beginning, and resorted to the simplest drinks and mildest remedies. He was confined to his room about fifteen days, during which time his disease assumed a more alarming appearance until the 10th of November. At eleven o'clock at night the world was deprived of this extraordinary man.”

Such is the sketch which Mr. Carmichael has given of the life and labours of Dr. Spurzheim. That he entertains an exaggerated notion of his powers of mind, we have already declared our conviction: and the very warmth of his admiration may induce many to hesitate in receiving his testimony respecting the soundness of the new philosophy. Spurzheim was a man of good capacity, and considerable attainments. He was well acquainted with the outlines of almost

every theory, ancient or modern, by which an explication, of mental pheno mena has been attempted: and admirably calculated to seize upon the admissions, the deficiencies, and the incongruities of other writers, for the purpose of shewing to advantage, the superior consistency, and reasonableness of his own and Dr. Gall's system. But had not the lucky thought of the latter led him into the track of discovery, there is nothing in his writings from which we should be led to conjecture that, by any other application of his powers, he could arrive at eminence or even at distinction. He was an amiable man, and much beloved by those who knew him, for the innocent hilarity of his disposition and the frankness and honesty of his nature. It was quite impossible to be in his society two hours without being convinced that there was not a single particle of quackery or hypocrisy in his whole composition. He met every enquiry that was made, with modesty and fairness; and was rarely at a loss to give a plausible, if not a cogent, answer to any objections by which his favourite science was assailed. Never was there a man less obnoxious to the charge of egotism in the little discussions which frequently took place respecting the merits of phrenology. A quiet observer would be struck by the very little pains which he took to exhibit himself, and his intense desire to recommend his system. He seemed to us capable of bearing injury, insult, almost any indignity, provided he could, by so doing accelerate the progress of what he considered, whether justly or not, the most important discovery that ever was made. Indeed his labours in the cause sufficiently prove the perseverance and the devotedness of his attachment to it; and that he was disinterested is abundantly manifest, as his gains from his lectures were scarcely ever more than sufficient to defray his necessary expenses. Had he become stationary in any principal town, the most ordinary success in his profession must have been far more lucrative than he could ever hope to render the more irregular course which he had adopted.

That there is something in phrenology, we believe every one admits. At least we have never met with any one who professed that he would expect to meet with exactly the same conform

ation of head in an idiot and in a Newton. The only difference, therefore, between Spurzheim and most others, is the difference between general acknowledgment and particular description. He gives the map of a country in the existence of which they profess to be lieve, while they call it "terra incognita. Now the whole question at issue resolves itself into a question of fact: namely, are the phrenologists justified in asserting that certain peculiarities of cerebral development are invariably accompanied by certain moral or mental manifestations? If this be so, they are right; if it be not so, they are in error. We have already intimated that it is not our intention to take either the one side or the other. While we do not think that sufficient inductional evidence has as yet been adduced to justify an adhesion to the phrenologists, we are of opinion that far too plausible a case has been made out to justify, for one moment, the fleering ascerbity of their adversaries;

and we are free to confess, that if the disciples of Spurzheim are only able to establish, upon ample and unexceptionable evidence, the position for which they contend, no force of intellect or of ridicule can finally prevail against them.

That individuals professing phrenology have been enabled to form very accurate judgments respecting the characters of others, upon a mere inspec tion of their skulls, and without asking a single question by which a personal knowledge of them might be elicited, cannot be denied; and we give the following instance, for the correctness of which we can vouch, as one of the most striking that occurred during Mr. Combe's late visit to Dublin. In visiting the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, a man was presented to him by Doctor Crawford, at that time the substitute physician, and, without holding a single word of conversation with him, he wrote down the following remarks :--

www.

The patient was withdrawn, and Mr. Combe added; "This is the worst head I ever saw. The combination is worse than Hare's. Combativeness and destructiveness are fearfully large, and the moral organs altogether deficient. Benevolence is the best developed of them, but it is miserably small, compared with the organs of combativeness and destructiveness. I am surprised that man was not executed before he be came insane."

It appears that Dr. Crawford, who was at that time, no phrenologist, had previously written down this man's character, as he knew it from a long acquaintance with him. It is as follows:

" Patient E. S., aged 34. Ten years since admission. Total want of moral feeling and principle; great depravity of character, leading to the indulgence of every vice, and to the commission

large. do. very large. do. large. do.

of every crime. Considerable intelligence, ingenuity and plausibility; a scourge to his family from childhood; turned out of the army as an incorrigi ble villain; attempted the life of a soldier; repeatedly flogged; has since attempted to poison his father."

Now we do not say that this instance alone ought to be sufficient to establish the truth of phrenology. But is it possible to say of a system which enables a mere observer, at a single glance, to form a judgment of character so nearly approaching to correctness, that there is nothing in it? We think not. We think, on the contrary, that a few such instances entitle it to the greatest consideration; and that, if many such can be as truly alledged, its adversaries will find it very difficult to contend against it.

It ought, however, to be impressed upon phrenologists, that they cannot

be too cautious, too patient, or too exact in their observations; and that a proneness to precipitate theory, may greatly retard, if not defeat their object. It owes whatever of plausibility at present belongs to it, to the fact, that it arose without any reference to theory; and the strongest prima facie objections to which it is liable are, undoubtedly, those which have reference to the very great rapidity with which it has assumed its present shape, and the very minute subdivisions, each having appropriate offices, into which the brain has been divided. If former philosophers have erred in supposing that there were no original propensities, but that all men came into the world with equal powers and capacities, and only differed from each other as their minds were formed by the education they received, or the circumstances by which they were surrounded, so it is to be suspected that phrenologists have erred by passing into an opposite extreme, and multiplying the primitive faculties to an extent that is unphilosophical and needless.

That phrenology leads to materialism has often been asserted; and the assertion has been rendered specious by the fact, that it numbers amongst its most ardent votaries, individuals who are known to be favorable to the material philosophy. But, in truth, it leaves the great question at issue exactly where it found it. Phrenology does not profess to throw any light on the nature of mind; it is only the laws which govern its manifestations, with which it pretends to be acquainted.And it might as well be said that a man was a materialist, because, admitted that he received ideas of colour by means of the eye, as that he should be so considered, because he maintained that all other emotions and impressions were perceived by reason of certain peculiarities of cerebral conformation, The brain is an instrument in the one case, exactly as the eye is in the other, and neither are to be confounded with the mind, any more than the music produced from a piano is to be confounded with the keys or the strings by impressions upon which it was occasioned.

But it may be said, if mind be a result of organization, as music is of impact upon an instrument, does not that savour, at least, of materiality? We

think not. We only know body by means of mind. We have no direct, or immediate cognizance of matter. Reid says we have; but his opinions are, at present, very little regarded. The late Dr. Thomas Brown says we have; but, we believe, no individual worthy of notice, himself excepted, ever adopted his peculiar view. The first refers the cognizance of external nature to a faculty which he denominates common sense; the latter to the resis tance occasioned by an interposing body to the power of muscular contraction. But, in both cases, obviously, that which is immediately, present to the mind, is the sensation, impression, idea, or whatever else it may be called, which is considered as intimating the presence of the external object; not the object itself, which is inferred, rather than perceived; which, as in the case of dreams, may be perceived when it is not present, and, as in the case of the heavenly bodies, may be perceived to be in one place, when it is known to be in another.

The most vivid perceptions, therefore, do not of necessity argue the presence of an external cause; although doubtless, they, in the great majority of instances, furnish sufficiently good reasons for believing such a cause to be in existence. But, we must not confound the inference of the judgment with the act of, or impression upon the mind. Of the latter, we have the evidence of consciousness. If we analyze the evidence upon which we rest our belief in the former, we will find it to resolve itself into no more than this, that such objects, supposing them to exist, furnish the most plausible account that can be given of the phenomena of perception.

A man hears the sound of a trumpet, and, in common parlance, he says he hears a trumpet. By which he does not mean that an external object, called a trumpet, is immediately present to his mind; but only, that the sound which he has heard leads him to infer that a trumpet must be somewhere in his neighbourhood. In like manner, with respect to all the other senses. The eye conveys impressions of colour, the nose of scent, which, although they lead to an almost instinctive inference that some external cause of these impressions must exist, yet by no means impart to us the same distinct and in

fallible evidence respecting that cause which we have of their own existence. Phrenologists affect to have found out a faculty somewhat analogous to Dr. Reid's "common sense," and by which they maintain that we havewhat amounts to self-evident knowledge of external existence. But we beg to ask, will not that faculty manifest itself in the dreamer, with an activity as intense, and a belief as unhesitating, as in any waking subject? And if so, how can it be presumed that any certain or infallible knowledge of the external world is the result of its operations? We are very much inclined to think, that the faculty to which the phrenologists allude, is a primitive faculty; that is, that some individuals are born with a peculiar power of observing and distinguishing particular objects; but that power affords no evidence whatever of the necessary existence of external objects, beyond the very natural inference which may be drawn in the case of any of the other senses. So that, for aught that

phrenology accomplishes, the great question between materialists and immaterialists remains exactly where it was before.

A knowledge of matter presupposes the existence of mind. But the existence of mind does not necessarily presuppose the existence of matter. It may be true that the latter exists as well as the former. But it is not a self-evident truth. And however men may doubt about the one, the very fact of doubting at all, affords perfect certainty respecting the other. Our conjectures or inferences may be erroneous

and therefore we can never be sure that we are not under a delusion when we are led by our sensations to the belief of an external object. Many such delusions are practised by those who are skilful at slight of hand. But the very act of conjecturing at all, proves infallibly the existence of a being that conjectures, and we therefore, can never entertain any doubt respecting the real existence of an intellectual nature.

SIR,

The frequent complaints made of Reporters in the public papers, would induce those who value the honour of our Established Church, to hope, that it was to the inaccuracy of one of these we were to ascribe a report on the Education Question in Ireland. It is, at all events, due to propriety, to visit on the Reporter what he has presumed to put into the lips of his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin; and I can only treat it as coming from such a writer. It is due to the cause of truth and the Clergy of Ireland, not to allow that writer's observations to escape unnoticed. I merely touch on a few points

This writer, Sir, uses the cloak of the Archbishop's authority, to vindicate the book which the Commissioners VOL. I.

of Education have published, from the charge of being a mutilation of the Scriptures, and the plea is, that "a mutilation of a book, is a publication professing to be the whole book, which it is not." It were well, if such a plea as this could be admitted to vindicate the iniquitous principle of this selection. A selection from the Sacred Volume, used in education, in conjunction with the whole Bible, to the study of which, little children are taught with feelings of reverence to aspire, cannot indeed, with justice be called " a mutilation," but an honest and valuable introduction to the use of that inspired Volume.

But a selection from the Sacred Volume, used in education as this is, to the exclusion of the remainder, and made on the iniquitous principle,

4 I

that this remainder or any part thereof, is unfit for the instruction of youth, this, Sir, is not only a mutilation, but it is worse than a mutilation of the Scriptures, it is a mutilation of some parts of this holy Volume and a dese cration of the rest.

I would, Sir, that we had been left to impute this exclusively to Popish superstition, and that we had been permitted to consider the Protestant members of the Board merely as the dupes of a mistaken and perverted policy. But alas! we are deprived even of this melancholy consolation-we are compelled to admit that the Board is guided, not by a perversion of policy, but by a dereliction of principle. What is the account given of this selection? it is this

"The first publication of selections by the Society comprised the whole book of Genesis, with the exception of those parts which all parents would refrain from putting into the hands of their children." Here, Sir, is not a submission to an error of Popish superstition, not a weak and criminal compromise of truth with falsehood, but a plain dogma of Popery herself, a plain, direct and awful charge against the purity, and the perfection of the truth of the eternal God. Such dogmas may be novel in English people, but we are too well accustomed to them in Ireland.

The first in the ranks of impiety, who recently set forth a modification of this principle, was Dr. Doyle, who, in his letters on the Bible Society, in 1825, says

66

Some person in Waterford, quoted with religious horror the saying of a priest "that the Bible would play the devil with them," meaning the children, yet the priest thought rightly, though he expressed himself in the Irish manner, putting the wrong end of the sentiment foremost. The Scriptures would not play the devil with the children, but the devil would play his pranks with the children by means of the Scriptures!!"-See Letters of J. K. L.

This was followed by a worthy pupil of such a master, Mr. Sheil, who in the attack which he and Mr. O'Connell commenced upon the London Hibernian Society, declares it as the dogma of his Church, that "the Bible is not fit for the unassisted perusal of every shoeless urchin, and that we should not make a primer of the Word of God," and in

attacking the then Commissioners of Education for the principle that means should be taken to supply the Protes tant children with the Testaments," he urges this sentiment with the caustic irony of mingled infidelity and superstition, thus

"The Protestant child who sits beside the Catholic, is to be initiated in the interesting details of criminality contained in the history of the Jews, while his Popish neighbours are to be denied all access to those pure and salutary sources of information from which so much useful knowledge is to be derived." I refer those who wish to examine the impious amplifications with which ribald blas phemy can enlarge upon this principle, to a perusal of that gentleman's speech on that occasion. So Mr. Maguire in his controversy with Mr. Pope, says"Christ will not allow his children to use good food, when by the circumstances of the case, it might be converted into poison. Would you give to a child food of an indigestible quality?" In short, Sir, this is a principle which has been set forth and dilated on by men of every grade and every class, from the schoolmaster to the pope, in the ranks of superstition, and from the liberal to the atheist, in those of infidelity; but no man has ever yet ventured to suppose, a Protestant Archbishop gravely to stand up and tell a Protestant nation, that in conjunction with the ministers of superstition, he had composed an expurgate edition of an inspired book of God, “omitting those parts which all parents would refrain from putting into the hands of their chil dren.” That is, Sir, in plain English, that the Bible is a book unfit for our children, and that these parents—these worms of the dust, are wiser than the God and Father of lights, whose wisdom inspired, and whose mercy gave his Sacred book to be "a lantern to our feet and a light to our paths," to guide us to salvation from the cradle to the grave.

What, Sir!-Is it that very portion of God's holy Word which his own authoritative command ordains that we "should teach them diligently unto our children?" that we should "teach them to our sons, and our sons' sons,” that “children which have not known anything may hear and learn to fear the Lord their God, as long as they live." Is this that Word which we are now to learn