The facts on this subject, without regard to religious or phrenological prejudices, appear to be these :

1st, That human nature has been formed to possess definite organs of body and mind, and that these constitute human nature, and form the component parts of every sane and sound individual; and that the only difference between one individual and another is in the greater or less amount of power, in quantity and quality, of these component parts.

2d, That these organs, consisting of physical propensities, intellectual faculties, and moral feelings, being thus differently compounded in each individual, have been formed capable of receiving impressions from external circumstances, and to be influenced by them to an extent to which no one yet knows how to assign limits.

3d, That the influence of these external circumstances may be made to act very powerfully on the germ or seed of every organ, if not upon the quality of the germ or seed itself; and in such a manner as materially to influence the quantity and quality, during their growth, of all these organs until they arrive at maturity, and, to a considerable degree, even during the life of every individual.

4th, In this manner external circumstances may be now devised and arranged by society, for which it has the most ample means at its control, to train every infant, not diseased in its physical or mental organic powers, to acquire any language, a belief in any religion, to have any dispositions, habits, and manners, and to pursue any previously-decided-upon conduct that society may deem the best to have put into practice. But society cannot give genius in any particular art or science, except the natural organ of such art or science shall be favourable for its development; although by an early and steady cultivation of these organs, under the constant direction of superior instructors, much may be done with all, except the organ should be more than ordinarily deficient.

5th, The world has been considerably improved in knowledge of the human organs and faculties by the phrenologists, and the study of Phrenology should be cultivated by every one who desires to obtain more accurate information of human and of animal nature generally; and it would be now useful to unite the friends of Phrenology, and of the science of the influence of external circumstances, into a friendly association, to promote the improvement of human beings previous to and after their birth; and to enable the members of both, thus united, to oppose successfully the remaining ignorance and prejudices of the present age upon these subjects.

6th, That the full happiness of human nature is not to be attained until all the organs which constitute human nature shall be cultivated in each individual at the proper period of life, and shall be afterwards regularly exercised to the point of temperance in eaclı individual.

7th, That the present irrational system of society will not admit of this improvement in human life and happiness: and that, therefore, a change from the present old, ignorant, immoral world, is, by the natural course of events effected by the Great Power of the universe, now urgently required; and all things seem to be preparing for the commencement of a New Moral World, founded on truth, and to be conducted with knowledge, equity, and justice.

Let, therefore, the advocates of the science of circumstances acquire more knowledge of Phrenology, and the promoters of the study of Phrenology make themselves better acquainted with the yet almost unknown powers which the science of circumstances will develope to mankind. There is no necessity for contests of opinion between these parties, but much for union and harmony.

REPLY BY MR J. D. HOLM.

The human animal is the ruler and subjugator of all other animals. By what means is he thus powerful? By means of the various moral and mental faculties with which Nature has endowed him; for his physical powers as regards strength, or swiftness, or range of motion, are inferior to those of most of the lower animals. For the subjection of some animals, Secretiveness was necessary; for others, Combativeness, Destructiveness, and various other organs acting in combination under the general guidance of mind. The peculiar and distinctive faculties which have enabled him to assume and preserve his superiority, are the great types of his nature; THEY are the base of his character, and the power of circumstances (which none but fools deny), is only a secondary power, able to modify, but not form any specific cha

racter.

We see every day children born of the same parents, treated in the same manner, subjected to exactly similar influences, exhibiting totally opposite characters; as Shakspeare's and Spurzheim's families, out of thousands of other instances, prove: the former was one out of ten children, and the latter one out of a large family.

The Siamese twins (than whom, perhaps, no stronger instance of necessitated similarity of circumstances can be adduced), are very dissimilar characters. I have examined them both. Each has a character peculiar to himself, and so has each individual, upon which no circumstances can operate beyond a certain ex

tent.

The vessel formed to hold a pint, can, by no circumstances (short of an entire change of its original conformation) be made to hold a quart. The quick and warm cannot be made slow and cold, unless by operations calculated to destroy, not direct, vital power; and, of course, such operations are not included in the argument.

Place a race-horse and a dray-horse under exactly similar circumstances from birth; no human power can make them change characters, or approximate to each other in character: as impossible is it to effect such changes or assimilations in men who are naturally greatly dissimilar.

Circumstances, as a SECONDARY power, may modify character; but nature, as a PRIMARY power, will prevail over all cir

cumstances.

Thus, then, I contradict Mr Owen's notion that phrenological organization is of less consequence than education. Education is only second to organization, but it is second.

Mr Owen's acknowledgment that Phrenology may be made a useful study, and a great aid to enable man to know himself, is a poor palliative to his assertion, that phrenologists are at this moment leading the public astray, and that all of which they are capable is to make a "shrewd guess" at the characters of individuals. I assert that the phrenologist's exposition of character is NOT conjectural. He can lay his hand upon a man's head and say with certainty (such being the case), " Sir, you have great Self-esteem, and small Conscientiousness; the one will make you think highly of any scheme merely because it is your own, and the other will prevent your being sufficiently particular as to the means by which you advance it. You have large Benevolence, but Causality and Comparison are not greatly developed; and, therefore, you do not see with sufficient clearness the scope and result of your aims."

A sudden and cursory manipulation, which is almost all that a phrenologist is ever allowed, is not sufficient to do justice to the science or the subject on which it is exercised. What artist takes a likeness at a single sitting? He may take a sketch, not more. The same remark applies to phrenologists.

Mr Owen asserts that phrenologists recognise the present state of man as his natural state, and the present condition of society as the natural and best arrangement of human affairs. Mr Owen is mistaken. Few people see more clearly than phrenologists that the present state of man is not in accordance with his nature, and that the present arrangements of society are objectionable.

That Mr Owen's plans are immutably correct is yet a problem to all but himself. I am not going to say they are not so. The best method for him will be to bring, as soon as possible, the principles of his science into actual operation. People will then have, by ocular demonstration, the means of judging how far his expectations are likely to be universally realized.

In the mean time, Phrenology will be content to go on operating that gradual change which has attended the progress of man, the change which must be consequent upon inducing individuals to look into their own organization, and their children's, and treat them according to their peculiar natures.

The present age is prolific of plans for human improvement; but the administration of all plans must be committed to human agency. How are we to guard against their being administered corruptly? Every projector appears much in the situation of the young mouse in the fable, who recommended a bell to be hung about Grimalkin's neck, which, by ringing whenever she moved, would infallibly give notice of her mischievous approach. This was declared, by an assembly of rats and mice, a most admirable scheme; but for one difficulty-who was to put the bell about pussy's neck ?

Phrenology, which puts a mirror into each person's hand, by means of which he sees himself and his fellow-creatures, appears to me the only talisman, and phrenological education the only sure road to future improvement.

ARTICLE III.

COMMENTS ON MR HANCOCK'S "LETTER ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ORGANS OF COMPARISON AND WIT," contained in No. 45 of the Phrenological Journal. By H. C. WATSON, F. L. S.

IN No. 45. of the Phrenological Journal, I observe a letter on the Functions of Comparison and Wit, signed "George Hancock." This gentleman treats of the functions of the organs named as being still imperfectly understood, and also as if the conjectural explanations thereof referred solely to the questions about the perception of resemblance and difference agitated by Mr Scott. Of course, Mr Hancock can write his own opinions of the views of any other persons in his own way; but I will take the liberty of reminding him, that, in professing to treat of an agitated question as a question of science, it is usual for writers to assign some reason for utterly disregarding the facts or arguments of another party, tending to a different conclusion in respect of the subject under consideration. Hancock feels as much interested in the progress and accuracy of phrenological science as he professes to be, he can scarcely be ignorant that M. Schwartz of Stockholm, and the writer of this, have each suggested explanations as to the functions of Wit and Comparison, essentially different from those either of Spurzheim or Mr Scott. And with due deference be it written, that none of the others, including Mr Hancock himself, has cited

If Mr

so many facts and cases to illustrate and support his own views as I have done. On what grounds are these rejected? Looking to the wonted customs of writers on science, it ought to have been unnecessary for essary me to put such a query, before proceeding to examine the suggestions of Mr Hancock, which I feel in some measure called on to do, having published such very different conclusions on the same point, and certainly not yet abandoned them.

My reasons for rejecting the views both of Spurzheim and Mr Scott, will be found briefly noticed in Combe's System of Phrenology, 3d edition; and more fully explained in the Phrenological Journal, vol. vi. p. 383, and p. 451. It is needless here to repeat them. But I shall take the liberty of commenting on some of the points in Mr Hancock's letter, in the order of their occurrence, premising that most of his arguments are answered by anticipation in the papers referred to.

It appears to me that Mr Hancock has expressed himself very happily in suggesting, " that a small organ of Colour does not see a resemblance between colours which a more powerful organ perceives to be different; neither does a feeble organ of Tune perceive harmony where a larger organ discovers discord. The feeble organs, in both cases, only do not perceive differences, which is a very different thing from perceiving resemblances." But in his explanation by a query, " for how can any organ, whether large or small, perceive resemblances which do not in fact exist?" he surely assumes what no one ever intended to say. Neither Spurzheim nor Combe could commit the absurdity of saying that an organ perceived what did not exist.

Mr Hancock admits that organs perceive resemblances and differences between the things or qualities of which they are severally cognizant. "But," he says, " it does not therefore appear to me to be a very legitimate conclusion, that because each intellectual organ perceives both resemblances and differences existing between the peculiar qualities of which such organ is alone fitted to take cognizance, another organ, which is known to take cognizance of resemblances existing between qualities of which it takes no cognizance, but concerning which other organs are alone conversant, should be the same organ as that which takes cognizance of differences between them." This is fairly reasoned from the assumption, the type of which is altered to italics (by myself, not in the original); but this assumption is utterly unproved, if my construction of the words be correct. An illustration will explain this. A chestnut horse does not resemble a chestnut; but the colour of such a horse resembles the colour of a chestnut. The organ of Colour perceives the colours, and compares the colours; but it does not compare the horse and chestnut. So, if for a moment we assume that the