took the trouble of inquiring ; and if I had wasted a thought upon the matter, I should have deemed it unjust to have attributed on suspicion, to any respectable individual, such discreditable productions. But though, in themselves, beneath consideration, if your approbation extends so far, as to print them in the Phrenological Journal, I may be disposed to deal with them as representing the school ; and shall be happy, in that case, if you will permit me to illustrate their merits by a commentary.

I am glad to hear that you mean hereafter “ to confine your"self strictly to the proofs." This is precisely the lesson I have been desirous of teaching: and in following you, for a moment, in your irrelevant excursions, I only intended, by retorting your own warfare on yourself, to put you out of conceit with a favourite mode of disputation, and to compel you, even for your own sake, to limit the controversy to the facts.

I allow many statements of yours to pass without observation; because, though easily refuted, their importance would not compensate the trouble. I remain, my dear Sir, very truly yours,

W. HAMILTON. 16, Great King Street, 14th March, 1828.

IV. REPORT OF DR SPURZHEIM'S LECTURE ON THE

FRONTAL SINUS,

(From the Scotsman Newspaper of February 2, 1828, referred to by Sir

William Hamilton on pages 32 and 33.) As mentioned in our last, Dr Spurzheim did treat of the Frontal Sinus on Wednesday. He requested that it might be observed, in the first instance, that, although all which had been asserted respecting it were true, there was still a large field of usefulness left for Phrenology. The sinus—or, in other words, the hole or cavity betwixt the inner and outer plates of the skull, affected only our means of judging of the amount of the brain in the forehead—and

generally a very small portion of the lower part of the forehead. Buteven although the sinus were found in every instance, (which is not the case,) the means of judging as to the great mass of the brain--of the whole regions assigned to the propensities and sentiments—were left unaffected. And how much of character-how much of conduct, depended on the propensities and moral feelings of each individual ! But let it be observed, in the second place, that there is no sinus or cavity in the crania of children at their birth, nor until they reach a considerable age,--none at six months, two, five, or even seven years. The cranium is very thin in infancy, and no one can deny that the external conformation of the skull is then-in all healthy and ordinary cases-indicative exactly of the size and form of the internal brain. Here, then, although we should not go beyond ten years of age, is a clear and unimpeachable field on which we may judge of the comparative volume and distribution of those portions of brain in the forehead assigned to the perceptive or knowing faculties,--of what nature has originally done and intended for each individual in regard to intellectual powers : and is not this of very great importance? Is there not a great deal of the characters and talents of individuals even without Phrenology-known and indicated by the age of seven? But Phrenologists do not stop here. They say that of two skulls one may have a cavity, and the other not, and yet the skull without an open space betwixt the plates may be thicker than the one which has a cavity. Dr Spurzheim produced instances of this. The existence or non-existence of a sinus, therefore, was no absolute criterion of the thickness of bone or skull; and Phrenologists contend,—what, they say, anatomists and physiologists who attend to the facts must admit,that in the average of healthy individuals, in middle life, there is an average thickness of bone or skull, embracing both the outer and inner plates, and the space between, when there is a space unoccupied ; that, in the average of healthy adults, the sinus is small, affecting only a small portion of the forehead above, and laterally from the root of the nose, seldom occupying, and still more seldom extending beyond the external spaces assigned to Size, Weight, or perhaps a small part of Locality, or Lower Individuality; and never, in the absence of insanity or old age, extending to Causality. In old age, and in disease, unquestionably, various anomalies are presented. Every old person has not

sinus; but frequently the sinus increases as the faculties decay; and decay, it is well known, commences in different individuals at very different periods of life, and reaches very different degrees. There is a precocity in decay as well as in talent; and

many diseases affect the condition of the brain ; but, taking the mass of ordinary cases of healthy adults, the external size and conformation of the forehead may be relied on, as indications of the amount of brain to be found within. This was as much as was to be obtained in any science connected with morals. Dr Spurzheim did not maintain that there were no anomalies in nature, no difficulties to be overcome. On the contrary, he strongly enforced on his audience, that many difficulties presented themselves to those who would judge of the intellectual powers from the external form. There was frequently a bony ridge at the extremity of the eyebrows, which gave a sharpness to them,—which was sometimes solid bone, sometimes hollow, and forming what might be called a crest,which sometimes accompanied a sinus, and sometimes not,-but

which did not indicate the presence of brain. This ridge, when it existed, and the presence of which could not be mistaken, must always be abstracted, or held as entirely removed, in judging of the volume of brain. It was also not enough to attend merely to the breadth and height of the forehead; it was still more essential to ascertain its depth, or the extent in which examining it en profile—it projects forward from the portions of brain assigned to Benevolence in the upper region, and Constructiveness in the lower-as to which the total mass of brain forward from the centre of the ear--but still more the amount of brain forward from the temple-affords an important and readilyobservable indication. We may thus-by careful observation, but only by very careful observation,-be able to say of an individual whether his intellect be shallow or deep. But the lecturer impressed strongly the necessity of Antiphrenologists taking the trouble of ascertaining what Phrenology is,—what it professes to deal with-and what it still leaves unexplained, before they slight it or attack it. If another course be taken, it merely proves the rashness, conceit, prejudice, and ignorance of the opponents. He then went on to explain the seat of Individuality, or that faculty or tendency which made persons curious, active, and desirous to ascertain all the individual existences by which they were surrounded,-a propensity generally strong in children, but stronger in one than another, not only in infancy, but through life. There were individuals constitutionally observant or unobservant. The French had more of this character than the English, --speaking of them nationally,--and the Scotch were certainly more inclined to reason than to know individual objects:—but still, let the reasoning powers be ever so powerful, it was necessary that they should lay in a stock of materials on which to operate ;--they should ascertain objects and facts-even of Phrenology-previously to their disposing of the science on metaphysical grounds.

It will be understood, of course, that we have not followed Dr Spurzheim through a lecture which occupied the greater part of two hours :-we have merely endeavoured-in this instance, from the controversy which is going on about the Sinusto give the essence of his prelection.

ARTICLE II.

ADDRESS DELIVERED TO THE LONDON PHRENOLOGICAL

SOCIETY, AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FOURTH SESSION, 5th NOVEMBER, 1827, BY JOHN ELLIOTSON, M.D., CANTAB., PHYSICIAN TO ST THOMAS' HOSPITAL.

We are now assembled to commence the fourth session of our Society, and evidently under more favourable auspices than any former one. At the institution of the Society in 1823, our numbers did not amount to a dozen, and now we are nearly an hundred and fifty, of whom seventy-nine are ordinary members; and in the last session no fewer than thirty members were admitted. We hail this not as a proof that our Society is becoming popular, but that the science of Phrenology is beginning to be valued. In other societies an increase of members depends upon their good management, because the value of their object is undisputed, and those societies must therefore flourish most which best prosecute it; but the truth and utility of our object are called in question, and consequently, at the admission of every new member, we may conclude that one more person is convinced of the truth of Phrenology. But we have many other proofs of the spread of the science. Phrenological Societies, or Clubs, have lately been formed in many parts of England. The lecture-rooms of Dr Spurzheim and Mr Combe have been crowded ; good authors express their assent to Gall's doctrines, and, what is a very striking circumstance, in books containing no allusion to Phrenology, phrenological language is adopted. I may mention, that a large lunatic hospital is erecting at Brussels, and that Dr Gall told me a month ago in Paris, that he had been consulted upon its arrangements, and trusted it would be one of the best in Europe. The cry of deism, materialism, and fatalism, is now faint. The academy of the Catholic religion at Rome condemned Phre

nology as “contrary to the morality and precepts of the Chris“ tian religion, based on the most absurd fatalism, and on the “ erroneous doctrine of predestination.” Gall was obliged to leave his practice in Vienna on account of the charge of materialism against his doctrines. But at present few raise these objections, -none but those who are deplorably uninformed. A gentleman was sitting next me at a dinner-party, where it was well known that I was a Phrenologist and he an Antiphrenologist, and one who delighted in mischief begged to know if he believed in Phrenology. The opportunity of vengeance against me and Phrenology was too favourable to be lost, and he exclaimed, “I am not a Phrenologist, because I “ am not a materialist; I am not a Phrenologist, because I “ believe in God; I am not a Phrenologist, because I be6 lieve there is a difference between right and wrong; I “ am not a Phrenologist, because I believe in an hereafter !" I congratulated myself that we were not at Rome, and he the Pope. But the effect of his violence was merely a laugh throughout the party. In fact,

In fact, upon the question of materialism, people now see that they can neither think nor feel without heads; that Shakspeare spoke the truth when he said, that when the brains are out a man must die; and that, this being undeniable, no more support is given to materialism, by believing with Gall that different parts of the brain have different offices, than by the common doctrine, that the whole of the brain does every thing. They see that the fact of the brain being the organ of mind is not at all inconsistent with the belief, that an immaterial and immortal something is diffused throughout the brain and sets it in action. Some conceive it of no importance to the Christian whether he believes in an immaterial principle of mind or not, agreeing with Locke, who says, in his second reply to the Bishop of Worcester, “ All the difficulties that are raised against the thinking of “ matter, from our ignorance or narrow conceptions, stand " not at all in the way of the power of God, if he pleases to