templating two figures, that the one is a square and the other is a circle. And if he have adequate opportunities of observing the mental manifestations, he will receive an equally satisfactory conviction of the difference in them also. The like may be predicated respecting the other organs. A sufficient number of these extreme cases exist, and are accessible to all serious inquirers, to prove the real connection of particular mental powers with particular portions of the brain.

It has been said that the proposition that the brain consists of a congeries of organs is only hypothetical, because no one has been able to demonstrate in the brain the separate existence of the so-called organs. Certainly we have not been able to demonstrate it to the eye and to the touch; but we are able to do so to the understanding. I mean to say, that, when the eye perceives the difference in the part named the organ of Ideality between Dr Chalmers and David Haggart, and the understanding, by means of an extensive induction of facts, arrives at the conviction that the want of the peculiar feeling named Ideality is connected with deficiency of size in this particular part of the brain and no other, and that the possession of it in a high degree is connected with the large development of this part and no other, the inference that by this part exclusively the power is manifested is perfectly legitimate. We may dispute whether the part should be called an organ or not, but the merits of this dispute will be found to involve only the definition of the word organ. If we limit the meaning of the word to parts the boundaries of which we can see or feel, such as the eye and the auditory nerve, assuredly the cerebral portion is not an organ in this sense of the word; but then it follows that the posterior column of the spinal marrow is not an organ of sensation, nor the anterior column an organ of motion, because the line of demarcation between them is not ascertained. If, however, we define an organ to mean a particular part whose locality is ascertainable, and which can be demonstrated to be connected with a particular function, then the portions of the brain marked out by phrenology are organs, and the posterior and anterior columns of the spinal marrow also are organs of sensation and motion respectively. The understanding is satisfied that they are organs, although the senses are not. But the same defi

ciency of visible and tangible evidence pervades other sciences. No philosopher ever saw or handled the cause of attraction or gravitation; the whole science of astronomy rests on inductions from the phenomena of its manifestations merely. A large portion of the science of geology also is composed of inductions from phenomena, and we believe in the deposition of certain rocks by water, and in the ejection of others by fire,

with the most assured conviction, although we have not seen either the actual deposition or the actual ejection of any of them. Medicine also, as a practical art, is able to exhibit few of the causes of the diseases of which it treats to the eye or the sense of touch, yet we do not hesitate to believe in these causes, and to act on our belief.

I have entered into these details perhaps unnecessarily, respecting the evidence on which phrenology rests; but I proceed to add, that cases certainly do occur in which it is impossible to determine, with precision, the relative size of some of the organs. In these cases phrenologists differ in opinion; their differences are seized hold of by opponents as evidence that the whole doctrines are a mere tissue of conjectures, and that there is no conclusion within its whole circuit which rests on a really satisfactory foundation. Every phrenologist feels the injustice of this mode of treating the subject, but every one does not see the answer to the charge. Besides, in this meeting a meeting composed of phrenologists-it is to be expected that the most striking cases of development and deficiency on which the science rests, will not be those which will be brought most extensively forward, but that we may be called on to consider and discuss difficult instances regarding which many of us may differ in opinion; and I should regret if any of our own less-experienced members, or of the visiters who may occasionally listen to our proceedings, should imbibe the impression from them that our whole science is still matter of dispute among ourselves.

I consider the foundations of phrenology to be as palpable as the sun at noon-day, and as impregnable as the solid rock, if we seek for its evidence in cases of extreme size and extreme deficiency in different parts of the brain; but I admit that cases of special combination, and others of nearly equal development of many organs, occur, in which its application is difficult, and I believe that the like may be predicated of most other sciences founded on observations of nature.

Geology is, like phrenology, a science of observation, and we have a recent instance shewing that while, as a whole, it is surely and rapidly progressive, its details are, in many points, subjects of uncertainty and dispute. "In all the geological maps of England which I have seen," says an enlightened geological friend," from Conybeare and Phillips' in 1822 to Walker's in 1837, the stratified rocks of Devonshire are marked as clay-slate and greywacké. Professor Phillips, so late as 1837, held the lower part to consist of these rocks, and the upper of millstone grit. Mr Delabeche in 1839 was nearly of the same opinion, substituting the term "Carbonaceous series of Devon and Cornwall" for millstone grit. Yet

the opinion thrown out by Messrs Murchison and Sedgwick a few years ago has recently been confirmed by an examination of the fossils, and the inferior portion of these rocks is found to belong to the old red sandstone formation, the superior to the coal-formation. Let it be observed, that the dispute in this case did not relate to the tertiary beds, which have only begun to be studied within these few years, but to the older rocks whose characters were supposed to be sufficiently known even in the days of Werner." How often, also, does the geologist experience difficulty in distinguishing between rocks of igneous and those of aqueous origin, in particular instances in which they appear almost to run into each other; although, in the general case, the differences between them are striking. He would be an unjust adversary who, from these difficulties and differences in opinion among eminent geologists, should argue that the whole science is involved in uncertainty, and has no solid foundation in ascertained facts.

I have hitherto spoken of phrenology chiefly as a branch of physical science; but it presents another and an almost boundless field of interest, as the philosophy of the human mind. In this respect it is unlike, and, in my opinion, it excels, most of the other sciences. In establishing the functions of a particular part of the brain, we ascertain a primitive faculty of the mind. When we have fixed, on a sure basis, our knowledge of each primitive mental power, its sphere of action, its uses and abuses, and the morbid aberrations to which it is liable, we have laid the foundation of the philosophy and practice of education, because education consists in training, instructing, and directing the primitive faculties of the mind; we have presented materials for the construction of a sound and practical system of ethics, because ethics or moral philosophy is simply an exposition of human duty, founded on the nature and objects of the bodily functions and mental powers; we have lighted the path of the physician in the treatment of insanity, because this disease has its origin in the departure of the cerebral functions from the state of health, and a correct knowledge of their normal condition is the very foundation of sound views of their phenomena when diseased; we present principles of the greatest value to the criminal legislator to guide him in his enactments, because his object is to restrain the mental powers of individuals from abuses, and phrenology points out to him the causes within the mind itself, and also those external to it, which most vigorously excite each particular faculty to action, and crime is the result of excessive, or ill-directed, action of one or more of our primitive desires.

With such a field of interesting investigation before him, the mind of the phrenologist is prone to catch fire and launch forth on the vast ocean of speculative discussion, instead of confining itself to the sober limits of correct observation and cautious induction. It is to many minds a captivating employment to assume data, instead of observing facts, and to weave a gossamer web of the imagination, instead of practising the rules of a rigid logic. In our discussions on the present occasion, it will be desirable that our members should restrain that ardour of speculation which is so captivating to vivacious and ingenious minds when presented with a theme worthy of their powers, and should rely on facts, and direct and logical inferences from them, rather than on bold theories, for attaining the objects of our meeting.

In the observations which I have hitherto made, I have had in view chiefly the proceedings of the Association as an assembly of confirmed phrenologists. Let me now address a few remarks to those who may honour us with their attendance in the character of mere inquirers into the evidence and objects of phrenology.

Many individuals are to be met with who approach phrenology in a spirit not only of doubt but of disdain; who come to listen to a phrenological discussion not with a candid mind open to conviction, but with a captious, hostile disposition, and whose observations are, "Shew me this," "Convince me of that," and " May not the case be so and so?"-constantly labouring to turn aside evidence and truth, and indicating by their whole manner that these are unwelcome guests to their understandings. We have but one answer to make to such contentious inquirers: In all other sciences, conviction can be obtained only by a serious and candid application of the mind to the study of the subject itself, and phrenology forms no exception to the rule. In studying this science, the inquirer must begin at the rudiments; and he must lay aside the notion that it is of so trivial a nature, and so simple, that he may master it in half an hour, or that, by attending a few lectures, he may become wiser than its professors who have studied it for years. Phrenology, when viewed in all its bearings, is perhaps one of the most difficult of the sciences. To master it, the student must be a patient and accurate observer of size, form, and temperament; he must possess a mind capable of analysis and combination; and he needs an extensive practical acquaintance with the phenomena of daily life. We have among our own members individuals, skilled, perhaps, in other sciences, who have applied no small portion of their attention to phrenology, and who have become

convinced of its essential truth, but who still meet with many perplexities and occasions for doubt. I have generally found these to be non-practical phrenologists-that is to say, men who did not minutely examine living heads, and observe mental manifestations in the theatre of life. From the very nature of the science, (it being one founded on the estimation of form and size, and of the manifestations of mental power, which do not admit of specific measurements,) it is not susceptible of demonstration by reported evidence. The student must go to nature and learn to observe and estimate for his own satisfaction. From the first day when I entered on this study, I never derived conviction from reports of other men's observations; and if I had not gone to nature, I should probably have been still involved in perplexity and doubt. I beg, therefore, respectfully to state to intending inquirers, that I know of no royal road to this science, and that, much as we desire to extend a knowledge of it, the very principles which it teaches serve to shew, that we shall in vain endeavour to instruct those who approach us with the demand, "Shew me," "Convince me." We assure such persons, that we shall be most willing to afford them every assistance in their studies; but that they must convince themselves by observation and reflection. This Association meets not to teach the elements of phrenology, but to advance and diffuse it. Our friends, therefore, who favour us with their attendance as visiters, are entreated to make the necessary allowances for the difference between the state of mind of those who have long studied this subject and of themselves, if they are now approaching it for the first time.

To encourage inquiry, however, in a right spirit, I may advert shortly to some of the uses of phrenology. It is the philosophy of mind, and it enables us to know ourselves. It shews us that we possess animal propensities, moral sentiments, and intellectual faculties, and it makes us acquainted with the uses, objects, and abuses of these powers. i ney are all endowed with inherent activity, and, when excited, the feelings give forth their suggestions and impulses, often uncalled for by the will, and without guidance from the understanding. They often conflict in their desires: who has not experienced emotions of anger contending against the dictates of conscience and the understanding; emotions of self-love warring with those of benevolence and justice; emotions of fear and shame paralyzing not only the aspirations of ambition, but the clear dictates of duty? In short, which of us in youth, and on his first entrance into society, has not been perplexed, nay, perhaps tormented, by the conflicting emotions which poured