structive. Sir George Mackenzie repeatedly approaches the truth, and again flies off from it, misled by a defect in his knowledge. First, he considers resistance alone to be the quality cognised. Next, he conjectures that it is possible there may be distinct faculties for the cognisance of resistance and force. Then resistance is deprived entirely of its honours as a primitive function, nay, with it the idea of two faculties is dismissed, and force remains the sole constant primitive function. Yet the process of reasoning by which this conclusion is come to is, to my mind, the clearest demonstration of the actual truth, namely, not that force is the sole function, but that resistance and force are co-existent but distinct objects of cognition, each requiring, in order to cognition, its own power; they are the very conditions which, as Sir George Mackenzie says, when combined, produce equilibrium, the equilibrium of the planetary system itself. Sir G. M.'s gradual depreciation of resistance, with one or two qualms which bring it to a higher quotation only to droop again and finally to fall, is evidently the result of his having long imputed it to the sense of Touch: his own sagacity, for he was not then aware of Sir Charles Bell's nerve of muscular sensation, discovered that this was an error; and, finding that resistance is not cognised by Touch, and apparently being unaware of any other faculty for it, he dismissed it altogether as the object of a primitive function.

I feel assured that if Sir George Mackenzie shall acknowledge the sense conjectured by Dr Thomas Brown, and provided with a nerve by Sir Charles Bell, he must recall resistance to his favour as the only conceivable sensation of that sense. Whether affected by impulse or pressure, the sense cognises resistance alone. Impulse is only sudden pressure; an object in motion may impinge upon my body, or my body in motion may, as in a fall, impinge upon a resisting body at rest. The sense would never have given us the notion of force, or of any thing beyond the sensation of a pressure or a blow, except the negative of pressure, namely, its removal when its presence was necessary for

But we have the notion of force, and where do we obtain it? Not from motion, for motion would never suggest its own origin. Not even from the pressure or impulse of one external object upon another followed by motion, for we neither see nor feel their connection. But we have a clear notion of the force we ourselves can create and originate by the contraction of our own solecism. If force be constant, so necessarily must resistance, otherwise force were a superfluity. Force never totally overcomes resistance. It is enough to say that a billiard ball or a planet offers its density to the moving force, to conclude that its resistance, though to a certain extent overcome, is as constant as the force that moves it. Force and resistance are co-relative and coexistent qualities; and, if there be a power to cognise each, Sir George Mackenzie's condition of constancy must be fulfilled in both. In truth, Sir George's argument assumes the very point he denies.

muscles. We can push, squeeze, strike, and draw, and motion and consequent change instantly follow the effort. Experience teaches us that there are external forces which can push, squeeze, strike and draw, and we see motion follow; but our own muscular power, I humbly think, is the origin of all our notions of force as a cause of motion, or as a counter-resistance to resistance. We instinctively apply it to keep our balance when sensation informs us that that operation is necessary. The operation itself is an act of force, for we are conscious of the energetic cause as well as of its effect. Resistance, then, being a mere sensation, and force a positive act, they cannot be results of the same power or faculty; the one requires no more than an external passive sense, while the other requires an internal active faculty *. I would therefore humbly propose to give to the sense—which is a sixth in our constitution-the name of the SENSE OF RESISTANCE, and to the internal faculty that of the FACULTY OF FORCE. As a corollary, I would conclude that EQUILIBRIUM, which I have hitherto erroneously held to be a quality cognised by a special faculty, is nothing more than a state, the state of balance between force and resistance. It is essentially rest; while the disturbance of that balance produces MOTION.

The analogy, to which I formerly alluded +, between the connection of the sense of Resistance with the faculty of Force, and the connection of the sense of Sight with the faculty of Colouring, or of the sense of Hearing with the faculty of Tune, ap. pears to me to be correct; and it is a valuable analogy for my

I request very particular attention to the above reasoning; for it has been stated to me as a difficulty, that as there must be force exerted to produce resistance, force and resistance are inseparable, in other words, identical, and therefore do not require separate faculties. Now, in dealing with the sense, I have considered, and could only consider, the impression we receive, not the cause of it. However produced, resistance is the sole impression which an external object makes upon our passive sense. It matters not to this that the object, be it a solid rock or water,-is exerting force, in the divulsion of its particles, in order to resist us; for we do not cognise this force by the impressions we receive from it, more than we cognise a red and solid rose from smell alone; and we should never, but for our own muscular exertions (for which an active faculty is indispensable), gain the idea of force, as exerted by the rock or the water. I adınit, and even have assumed, that force and resistance are inseparable, but deny that, relatively to our powers of cognition, they are identical. This conclusion is not affected by the additional, but independent, truth, that our muscles must exert force (and they do so in their very solidity), in order to feel resistance from the rock or the water; for even after making that exertion, or by mere vis inertia causing the counter resistance, we get no more from the rock than a passive sensation. For this sensation there is a nerve, but there is another nerve to obey our will, when we ourselves apply force either to balance or overcome resistance. The relation is necessarily bilateral. That resistance is all that we feel, whatever produces resistance, or whatever, in consequence of that feeling, we do, is the concurring opinion of Dr Brown, of Dr Spurzheim, and substantially of Sir Charles Bell. It was Sir G. Mackenzie's belief, and I feel assured will be so again.

+ Vol. iv. 283.

purpose. Sight and Hearing are mere passive sensations of light and sound; so that, without faculties distinct from, but related to, these senses, respectively, we should never have acquired a knowledge of colours and music. So it is with the sense of Resistance and the faculty of Force; the sense of Resistance would not have given us the knowledge of force. When I claimed for the faculty of Force, as it is proposed now to call it, an organ in the brain, analogous to those for Colouring and Tune, and removed the objection that the nerve of the sense of Resistance is not traced into the convolution of brain allotted to Force, by answering, that neither is the optic nerve traced into the organ of Colouring, nor the auditory nerve into the organ of Tune, which faculties of Colouring and Tune have nevertheless organs demonstrated to accompany their respective manifestations, I observed that the senses of Seeing and Hearing minister to the faculties of Colouring and Tune; but these last faculties work up higher the raw materials of light and sound, into all the combinations of tints, melodies and harmonies; so may, and probably so does, this new sense of Resistance minister to a higher faculty, which can combine forces, and estimate their harmonies in complicated equilibrium. But we must crave time both to observe and think on this difficult subject, for it is yet only a hypothesis that a sense and a higher faculty both exist." I must leave it to you and your philosophical readers to form your own judgment as to what advance has now been made on the above conjecture of 1827; and whether what was then a hypothesis is or is not now nearer to a demonstration, viz. that there exist in man and all living animals a SENSE FOR MECHANICAL RESISTANCE WITH ITS NERVE, AND A FACULTY FOR FORCE WITH ITS ORGAN; THAT ORGAN IN MAN HAVING ITS LOCALITY IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE ORBITAR PLATE, BETWEEN THE ORGANS OF SIZE AND COLOURING.—I am &c. JAMES SIMPSON.

ARTICLE II.

ANNALS OF PHRENOLOGY, Nos. I. & II. Boston: Marsh, Capen, & Lyon. 1833 & 1834.

THE design of the conductors of the American Annals of Phrenology, is to publish "articles from the Edinburgh, Paris, and London phrenological journals, and such papers as may be selected and approved by the Boston Phrenological Society." Each number is to contain 128 octavo pages, with such engravings as the subjects introduced may require. "Since the visit

of Dr Spurzheim to this country," it is said, "the science of Phrenology has assumed an interesting aspect, and intelligent men of every class have become engaged in the investigation of it. This Journal is proposed with a view to facilitate free and general inquiry into the truths and objects of Phrenology, and to ascertain its bearings upon the physical, moral, and intellectual condition of man," The first number appeared in October 1833, and the second in September 1834. The remaining numbers of the first volume, however, will be published before January 1835. The causes of delay, heretofore, have been unavoidable, but they are now entirely removed."

Two-thirds of the first number are occupied by an article from the pen of Dr Caldwell, entitled, " Phrenology Vindicated, in remarks on Article III of the July number, 1833, of the North American Review, headed Phrenology." It is in Dr Caldwell's usual vigorous style, and, as we formerly remarked, utterly annihilates the reviewer. Having ourselves (Vol. VIII. No. 40,) replied to that antiphrenological writer, we think it unnecessary to give a detailed view of the line of argument adopted by Dr Caldwell. It will be enough to advert to a few of the more prominent topics discussed, particularly those which our limits did not permit us formerly to notice, and those which bear upon phrenological doctrines important in themselves without any reference to the present controversy.

Dr Caldwell treats the reviewer with unsparing severity: to no other treatment, in his opinion, can there be the slightest claim. "As one of its lightest faults," says he, "the article is wanting in that respectful observance, which should mark not only the intercourse of polished minds, but every form of intercourse in which either letters or science are concerned. Comparatively trivial as this omission may be thought, it is not destitute of weight and influence. An entire absence of good nature and good breeding in such a case,-for both are involved in it,-is always disagreeable, and not unfrequently a source of mischief. It awakens fresh feelings not friendly to impartial inquiries, produces usually a return of discourtesy, and, by strengthening prejudices and jealousies already existing, tends to perpetuate disagreements, prevent the co-operation of minds in a common cause, and thus retard the progress of knowledge.

"But the article possesses other characteristics much more objectionable. It possesses, indeed, but few that are free from objections. We dislike its whole tone, taste, temper, order, spirit, and, in fact, all its qualities, except its errors, want of strength, and inconclusiveness. Our reason for not disliking these, is, that they render the paper harmless, in its attack on a science we have long delighted in, and which we believe to be founded in truth, and destined to be highly beneficial to man. We further dislike

the production, because the arts and devices of the witling, and the cavilling sciolist, mingled with the cant of the pretender to orthodoxy, too often usurp the place in it, which ought to be occupied by the facts and arguments of the conscientious inquirer. Above all, we dislike it on account of the determined spirit of falsification and obloquy which pervades it, to an extent that has scarcely a parallel.”

There are some pointed remarks on the absurdity of endeavouring, at this time of day, to strangle Phrenology by falsehood and abuse. "If Phrenology be doomed to extinction (which we deem as improbable as that the sun will retrograde on his path) the work must be effected by other means. Misrepresentation, denunciation, and all the shuffling devices of unfairness, on the part of its adversaries, have had their time, and have failed to perform their allotted task. They must therefore cease, and observation, inquiry, and argument begin. By such means only can truth be elicited, to whatever side of the controversy it may incline. And though it would astonish us greatly were it to declare against Phrenology, yet, if the contest be thus to terminate, the sooner the better. Phrenologists are labouring for the attainment of truth, and will delight to give in exchange for it their most cherished hypotheses. They therefore invite their opponents to state frankly their objections to the science, as expounded by its advocates, and as it is in itself, not as misrepresented by its enemies, and those who are ignorant of it. They invite them, moreover, to make their statements gravely and courteously, like philosophers and men of breeding; not rudely and sneeringly, like coarse jesters, and charlatans in science. Should it be made to appear, in the course of our inquiry, that the author of the article belongs to the latter class, the fault is his own. Nor will the public, we trust, attach any blame to us, should we openly expose to them so many and such gross violations of truth in his paper as to destroy entirely his credibility as a writer."

Dr Caldwell accordingly lays open in a masterly manner the barefaced misrepresentations and falsehoods to which the reviewer is so fond of resorting. Of this portion of the article, we have room for only a short specimen.

"But, disagreeable as the task is to ourselves, and no less so, we fear, to our readers, we are not yet done with exposing this gentleman's misstatements. In reference to the proposition, that the strength of a mental faculty is in proportion to the development of its organ, he says,

"The phrenological writers themselves admit the statement not to be correct, when they declare, in the case of any particular organ, that the surrounding organs may be so much developcd (we use the orthodox phrase) that this organ, though ab