ciety, but by "all the open skulls" of a private "collection;" whereas this private collection is withal so exceedingly limited, that his manner of alluding to it is calculated only to deceive. To prevent any misunderstanding-as the charge is a serious one-I beg to adduce an additional part of Mr Combe's own statement." In pre"senting (says he) examples of the sinus to the audience, I called "their attention to the fact, that in most of them it was so small "as not to be perceptible to the eye in the distar parts of the room, " even in skulls sawed open, and remarked, that if I had produced "the specimens offered by Sir William Hamilton, which were not "allowed to be opened, and explored the sinus through holes not "larger than pin-heads, as proposed by him, no ocular demonstra"tion could have been enjoyed even by the nearest individuals; that "as the stronger evidence was always to be preferred to the weaker, "I had used Mr Syme's specimens, which, while not liable to any "charge of partiality, spoke to the eye." Here all Mr Syme's specimens are unquestionably referred to, without any qualification, as fairly exhibiting the frontal sinus, and the public has now been informed, that the number of these crania amounted to eight.

The letters that have at length stated this to be the number are given by Mr Combe without any explanatory observation; and I now therefore beg leave to state, that, having examined these eight skulls, I find the frontal sinus is only cut open in four of them. One is the skull of the young infant which I formerly referred to,another is actually that of a foetus; neither of these are, in any way, connected with the question under discussion, and do not answer to the description of skulls which Mr Combe has given in the preceding extract. We next find two adult skulls which are cut open horizontally, and although the sinus exists in both, in neither of them is it cut open at all. It is true-and the emergency of the case might possibly suggest the reply,-that these might have been adduced as negative evidence, to show that in these particular examples the sinus does not extend so high as it frequently does; still neither of these skulls corresponds with the description given by Mr Combe; in neither of them could the sinus have been pointed out, "so small as not to be perceptible to the eye in the distant parts of "the room;" neither of them could have been described as preferable to the specimens of Sir William Hamilton, in which the sinus was bored open so as to admit of being probed in every direction; in neither of them surely could the frontal sinus have " spoke to "the eye" even of the nearest individual; the consequence is, that the number of these crania which exhibit the sinus, as described by Mr Combe himself, are, after all, reduced to four. It may be worthy also of remarking, that these four do not afford the slightest evidence against Sir William Hamilton's anti-phrenological propositions, but, on the contrary, tend to establish them.

As my statement originally stood, Mr Combe himself acknowledges that it charged him "directly with imposition ;" and now, what is the difference between that and my present statement ?

On my first visit to the museum I was shown2 Adult skulls frontal sinus open.

On

1 Infant skull.

my

second visit, in addition to these

2 Adult skulls-frontal sinus open.

2 Adult skulls-frontal sinus not open.
1 Fatal skull.

There is, accordingly, after all, so far as the present question is concerned, only an addition of two skulls; and if my former statement, as Mr Combe confesses, conveyed against him a charge of "imposition," the present facts must tend strongly to confirm it.

The disingenuousness of Mr Combe's observations respecting" all "the open skulls" of this private" collection," the assertion that he, by adding them to those belonging to the Phrenological Society, which he acknowledges amounted to only "eleven or twelve," and that he was thereby enabled to refute Sir William Hamilton, is rendered more striking from the fact, that the induction which he professes to have thus refuted was drawn from a collection of from seventy to eighty cranial specimens, which Sir William Hamilton exhibited in his lecture at the College. On the other hand, in Mr Syme's specimens, which, at their maximum, amount only to eight,six only possess the sinus at all,-and in four only it is exposed. In referring to these, after his lecture, it is, that Mr Combe, carefully suppressing the number, announces to his readers, that because he wished to obviate " any charge of partiality," and because "the "stronger evidence was always to be preferred to the weaker," he brought down to his lecture the whole of this private collection.

It must be very obvious to every one, that Mr Combe, in condescending to resources of this kind, exposes sadly the weakness of the cause he so strenuously advocates; for neither his original statement, nor present evasive communication, is calculated to convey to the public the distinct and complete truth. In conclusion, I have only to add, that so conscious am I of my own rectitude in this matter so fully convinced that Mr Combe has established every thingand even more than I before alleged, respecting this misrepresentation, that I shall not hesitate to have his reply, with the present further explanation, printed and subjoined to my essay.-I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

May 1, 1828.

THOMAS STONE.

P. S.-I have, in the above letter, contented myself with stating merely facts, and contrasting them with Mr Combe's own statement; I now therefore leave your readers to draw their own conclusions, and do not intend entering into any further controversy on this subject.

REPLY BY MR COMBE TO MR STONE'S LETTER.

To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury.

SIR,-With reference to the letter by Mr Stone, allow me to remind your readers, that Mr Syme lectured on anatomy; and that his collection was such as to show, impartially, all that he thought requisite to be taught respecting the internal structure of the skull. He authorises me, in particular, to say, that "all the eight skulls either showed a sinus, or showed that it was wanting, or extremely small," and that the skull which Mr Stone describes as " that of an infant about two years of age," was that of "a child six years old." In his pamphlet, Mr Stone not only asserts that the number of Mr Syme's open skulls was only three, but, on this error of his own, he proceeds to accuse me of "flagrant misrepresentation,— to misguide disciples," and "impose on the understanding of the public." His pamphlet would not have been taken notice of by me in any shape, had it not been to repel this unfounded charge. My former letter to you was accompanied with evidence which disproved his accusation—and had he confined himself, in his reply, to simply accounting for his error, I should not have troubled you at present; but as he endeavours, in his letter in the Observer, of 6th May, to defend, not merely his error in point of fact, but his charge against me, a very few remarks, on my part, again become necessary.

The question at present in agitation between Mr Stone and me is not what is the size and frequency of the frontal sinus. In answer to his assertions on this head, I have referred to works on Phrenology, where he is fully refuted by anticipation. The point in debate is this; I stated that at the lecture in the Assembly Rooms I had exhibited to the audience the whole of Mr Syme's collection of open crania. Mr Stone asserted that the number was only three. I have produced Mr Syme's letter stating that all the open crania in his collection, which could be transported with safety, were sent to the Assembly Room, and that the number actually present was eight. Farther, it cannot be denied, that I exhibited the crania themselves before the audience, and thereby enabled them to judge, on the evidence of their own senses, how far they were cut open, and whether the sinus appeared in them or not. The only question, therefore, regards their number; and this is decided by Mr Syme's

letter.

Mr Stone, nevertheless, so far from acknowledging his error, reiterates his charge of imposition, and speaks with conscious complacency of his own rectitude." I am neither surprised nor offended by this manifestation of his mental qualities, but leave the public, after perusal of the subjoined letter, to judge which party shows the greatest regard for accuracy and truth.-I am, &c.

GEO. COMBE.

LETTER FROM JAMES SYME, Esq. to GEORGE COMBE, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR, When you

asked me last summer to give you the use of any open skulls that might happen to be in my museum, to illustrate your lecture in the Assembly Room, I little thought that compliance with this apparently very harmless request would involve me in a newspaper controversy. Mr Stone's statement in the Observer, of which you have been kind enough to send me a copy, certainly requires some explanation on my part; and I will there. fore give it, however averse to prolonging this most disagreeable dis-, cussion, particularly so to me, as it concerns a gentleman who is not only a student of medicine, but one of my own pupils.

The day on which your answer was published, Mr Stone expressa, ed to me, in the presence of several of my assistants, the greatest regret and contrition for his inaccuracy, and promised to apologize for treating my poor museum with so little respect. As he has not fulfilled his promise, I think it incumbent on me to explain how he seemed to have been led into error,

When Mr Stone visited my museum on the occasion referred to in his work, he found me particularly engaged, I believe, in preparing for lecture. He told me that he had returned two preparations which he had borrowed from me some time before, for the purpose of refuting Phrenology; and then asked me, pointing to a glass-case which extends along the whole side of a large room, all the skulls which Mr Combe had at his lecture?" I answered simply in the affirmative, and had no farther communication with Mr Stone on the subject. It appears that Mr Stone, in asking this question, alluded to three skulls which were lying together, and thus committed the unfortunate mistake.

If Mr Stone had told me the object of his visit, or given me rea. son to suppose that his question had any other origin than mere idle curiosity, I should certainly have told him when he would find me at leisure to look over the specimens in question, which were scattered over the whole extent above-mentioned, and ascertain their precise number, &c. I should have paid Mr Stone this attention, not because I approved of his opposition to Phrenology, but because he was a medical student. You know that I am not a believer in the truth of Phrenology, but I should certainly be the last person to ridicule or cry down the exertions of any man who attempts to extend the limits of our knowledge by observation. With best wishes for your success, I remain, &c.

I

(Signed) JAMES SYME. 75, George Street, 6th May, 1828.

« if those were

We add to these letters the following extract from the report of Mr Combe's lectures in the 'Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, in April, 1827, in answer to Sir William Hamil

ton, about the skull of George Buchanan, and the Bali murderer:

66

"The supposed skull of George Buchanan had been produced as an objection; but, in the first place, Buchanan died at the age of "78, which was at least 30 years beyond the period of middle life, "to which Phrenologists confine their demonstrative observations, "and no one could tell how much the brain and skull had diminish"ed in the course of the ordinary decay of nature. In the second place, the evidence of the skull having belonged to Buchanan "was found by the Phrenologists to be so defective, that they had "for this very reason avoided publishing any account of it. In the "third place, even granting it to be the skull of Buchanan, no attempt had been made to show that its development was incon"sistent with the manifestations. It had indeed been contrasted, "and held to be equally good with the skull of the Bali murderer, "which Mr Combe now saw for the first time, and which had been "sent in by Sir William Hamilton after the lecture had begun. A "friend sitting behind him had looked at it since it was handed in, "and written the comments, which he would now read:< The "Bali murderer is old, as is seen by the absence of the teeth and "alveolar processes. It is therefore not within the conditions re"quired by Phrenology. The skull is unequal and twisted. The "propensities generally are very large. Combativeness, Secretive66 6 ness, Self-esteem, Cautiousness, are all very large, and Destruc"❝tiveness and Firmness are large. Conscientiousness is moderate,