servations, that those persons who have the organ of Conscientiousness large, experience powerfully the sentiment of justice, while those who have that part small are little alive to this emotion. This evidence is the same in kind as that adduced in support of the conclusions of physical science." (P. 291.)

The phrenologists do not leave the fact here asserted to rest on their own observations merely, but present the means of verifying its truth to every one who chooses to qualify himself and to take the necessary trouble to do so. The following figures are given in Mr Combe's work as representing the organ of Conscientiousness in different degrees of development.

These figures, we affirm, represent Nature, not a casual appearance, but forms which are found constantly in combination with the qualities here named : and we inquire why Nature, when she speaks to the geologist or the chemist, should be listened to with profound attention, and her revelations treasured for human improvement, but scouted and despised when she speaks to and is interpreted by phrenologists? It is God who speaks from Nature in all her departments; and the brain is as assuredly his workmanship as the Milky Way itself, with all its myriads of suns. History presents us with numerous examples of the rejection, by men calling themselves philosophers, of the best authenticated natural truths, which had subsequently been universally received. We are the witnesses of a repetition of the same conduct in the case of Phrenology; but we appeal to Mr Sedgwick, and to every man possessing his reach of thought and elevated sentiments, whether the individuals who have thus acted have secured to themselves a permanent reputation for wisdom, or afforded any reason for gratitude towards them on the part of their fellow men. The neglect, by inferior minds, of the doctrine of the functions of the brain, and its consequences, gives us no uneasiness; but we cannot behold this neglect on the part of men who have within them a profound and reverential respect

for the philosophy of nature, and a capacity to perceive the invaluable consequences that flow from obedience to the natural laws, without feeling regret that ignorance, indifference, or the fear of losing a little temporary reputation, should lead them to shut their eyes against such an important discovery.

son.

Mr Sedgwick might have expounded many other deficiencies in the philosophy of Locke and Paley, which it will be impossible to supply without the aid of Phrenology. "The external world," he observes, "proves to us the being of a God, in two ways; by addressing the imagination, and by informing the reaIt speaks to our imaginative and poetic feelings, and they are as much a part of ourselves as our limbs and our organs of sense. Music has no charms for the deaf, nor has painting for the blind; and all the touching sentiments and splendid imagery borrowed by the poet from the world without, would lose their magic power, and might as well be presented to a cold statue as to a man, were there no preordained harmony between his mind and the material beings around him. It is certain that the glories of the external world are so fitted to our imaginative powers as to give them a perception of the Godhead and a glimpse of his attributes; and this adaptation is a proof of the existence of God, of the same kind (but of greater or less power, according to the constitution of our individual minds) with that we derive from the adaptation of our senses to the constitution of the material world." (Pp. 20, 21.)

The concluding part of this sentence might be made the subject of a whole chapter on the philosophy of mind. The proof of the existence of God afforded by the external world, is of " greater or less power, according to the constitution of our individual minds." Is it of no importance, then, to possess the means of expounding to every man what the constitution of his individual mind is; to be able to point out to those who profess to see no evidence in external Nature of the existence of a God, that they are deficient in the organs of certain highly important moral and intellectual faculties; to shew to the men who deny the existence of natural conscience, that their scepticism on this point arises from a palpable deficiency of an organ in their own brains; and to be able to prove to those who deny disinterested goodness in the human race, that this cold-hearted distrust owes its origin also to the imperfect development of a cerebral part? Phrenology does this, and no other philosophy of mind even pretends to accomplish as much.

" Amidst all the ruin that is within us," says Mr Sedgwick, " there are still the elements of what is good." As Mr Sedgwick is a philosophical and precise thinker, we regret that he has not favoured us, in some detail, with his notions of " the ruin that is within us." Correct conceptions on this point necessarily lie at the foundation of all sound natural theology and moral philosophy. Mr Sedgwick has expounded the past records of creation, and gives us positive assurance that they reveal "strange and unlooked for changes in the forms and fashions of organic life, during each of the long periods he thus contemplates;" and that the structure and functions of each race of animals as it appeared on earth, were admirably adapted to its physical condition. Man, he says, was introduced only lately into the world, which had been the theatre of life, death, and change, for countless ages before he appeared. Does he mean to maintain that man, such as we now see him, is not as admirably adapted to the world such as it at present exists, as his predecessors among the animals were to their respective external circumstances? Does he intend us to believe that there are within us positively noxious and sinful principles, which have no legitimate sphere of activity? or, does he mean that all our powers are in themselves good, but only liable to abuse? He does not hint at any solution of these questions. He may plead that, in a single discourse, he could not discuss every topic of so extensive a subject; and we give due weight to this apology: but we revert to our proposition, that the solution of these questions lies at the very threshold of natural religion and moral philosophy; and we add, that, in general, modern writers on these subjects, except the phrenologists, studiously blink them.

Phrenology affords us evidence that man himself, such as we now see him with all his organs and faculties, is a being as evidently adapted to the existing state of the world as any of his predecessors were to the physical conditions under which they existed. His organs of nutrition and absorption imply growth, maturity, and decay; his organs of Amativeness and Philoprogenitiveness imply a succession of generations, or the death of individuals; his organs of Combativeness and Destructiveness indicate that he is constituted to move in a state in which he may encounter difficulty and death; his knowing and reflecting faculties proclaim that he is invested with power to improve himself and his condition by the exercise of his abilities; while his moral and religious sentiments indicate that he is destined to flourish in society, to practise virtue, and to adore his Creator, as the great ends of his existence.

The human constitution, in short, contains demonstrative evidence of its adaptation to a world such as that in which we now live, and to a progressive march of improvement by the exercise of our own powers. We do not exclude assistance to these powers from above; but we mean to say, that the exercise of the elementary faculties, according to the laws of their constitution, is absolutely indispensable to human improvement in this life.

Phrenology further informs us, that man has received no appetite, faculty, or function, which, when viewed in reference to his circumstances, can be truly pronounced to be in itself bad; that all his powers bear the marks of Divine wisdom and goodness; and that there is no natural "ruin" in his frame. It shews that each faculty has a legitimate sphere of action, within which its manifestations are not sinful; and that the actions, the existence of which has given rise to the doctrine of the " ruin," are mere abuses of powers in themselves useful and necessary. It also throws some light on the causes which render certain individuals particularly prone to abuse their faculties. The three following figures represent, 1. the form of brain in which the moral and intellectual organs preponderate over the animal organs, and which is accompanied by moral dispositions ; 2. the form of brain in which the animal, moral, and intellectual organs are in æquilibrio, and which gives rise to a character good or bad very much according to external circumstances; and, 3. the form of brain in which the animal organs decidedly preponderate, and which has a constant tendency to vice.

The portion before the line AA (figure 3d) manifests the intellect, that above B the moral sentiments, and all the rest the animal propensities; and each part acts with a degree of energy, cæteris paribus, corresponding to its size.

The differences in these forms are abundantly obvious; and the phrenologists have appealed to numerous examples of each, and offered to prove that they are constantly attended by the respective qualities here described. They have, in particular, made one of the largest and most varied collection of skulls to be found in Britain, thrown them open to public scrutiny, and asserted most positively that they afford irrefragable evidence of the propositions here announced. Accident also has subjected their statements to several striking tests. The character of King Robert Bruce was well known by history, and, a few years ago, his grave was discovered, and a complete and authentic cast of his skull obtained; and it accorded precisely with the character which he had manifested. The skull of the poet Burns was lately disinterred, and a cast taken. His character was strongly marked and well known, and again the skull presented precisely the form and size which corresponded to these qualities. The celebrated Rammohun Roy, certainly the most interesting character that India has produced in modern times, unexpectedly came to England and died, and a cast of his head was obtained. The phrenologists had previously collected a number of skulls of his countrymen, and published drawings and descriptions of them, and designated the character which they indicated. Rammohun Roy was in many respects very unlike his countrymen in mental qualities. Was his brain different from the national type? It differed widely. In what respects? It was much larger, indicating far higher power; and it had a far superior development of the moral and intellectual organs. Are all these assertions to be treated by philosophers as mere fictions and fancies, unworthy of being put to the test, or even of a moment's consideration? or, if true, ought they to be considered as of no philosophical importance ?

Many criminals have forfeited their lives on the scaffold, and their skulls, or casts of their heads, have been obtained, and likewise found to present the development corresponding to their dispositions. Time would fail us to enumerate all the kinds of evidence that have been presented; and we again appeal to Mr Sedgwick, and every man possessed of moral and intellectual qualities like his, whether all these facts can justifiably, nay without blameworthiness, be disregarded by those who advocate the power, wisdom, and goodness of God in the creation? In no department of science are truths at once so momentous and so easy of verification presented to the cognizance of man; and it is little short of infatuation to treat them with the levity, contempt, and neglect, with which they have hitherto been received by many men pretending to be philosophers. If the facts here asserted be true, that every faculty is good in itself, that the folly and crime which disgrace human society spring from