Statistics of phrenology: being a sketch of the progress and present state of that science in the British Islands

Front matter

TAS S

Spe Pas de th be us é

F ae tA Aesth wire if 7.

Section I.— Hisroricat SKETCH OF THE PRoGreEss oF PHRE

NOLOGY, CONSIDERED IN RESPECT TO ITs RE-« CEPTION BY THE PUBLIC.

Early history — Spurzheim’s first visit to England

Section II, — and publication of the Physiognomical System — Progress of the science thence to the publication of Combe’s System of Phrenology, 1815- 1825 — Opposition to the science in the same interval — The System of Phrenology and the Edinburgh Review — Examples of opposition to the science subsequent to 1825 — Increased attention to the subject in the present day — Future prospects. Page 1—49

Present State OF PHRENOLOGY, CONSIDERED AS A BRANCH OF SCIENCE oR PHILosoPHy.

. Definition of the science and its objects — 2.

Metaphysical ideas of Mind — 3. Leading principles of the science— 4. Uses — 5. Objections — 6. Evidences —7. Suggestions for the study of phrenology — 8. Suggestions for diffusing a knowledge of the science — 9. Suggestions for checking uncandid opposition — 10. Comments on the opinions of correspondents.

Section III, —Locau Dirrusion oF PHRENOLOGY

State of the science, and steps taken to diffuse the knowledge of it in Aberdeen, Alyth, Arbroath, Bakewell, Bath, Belfast, Beverley, Birmingham, Bolton, Boston, Bradford, Brechin, Bristol, Bungay, Cambridge, Chatham, Cheltenham, Cork, Coventry, Cupar, Derby, Dingwall, Doncaster, Dublin, Dumfries, Dunbar, Dundee, Dunfermline, Dunse, Edinburgh, Fareham, Forx CONTENTS.

far, Gainsborough, Galashiels, Glammis, Glasgow, Greenock, Haddington, Halifax, Hawick, Huddersfield, Hull, Inverary, Inverness, Jedburgh, Kelso, Kerriemuir, Kilmarnock, Lauder, Leamington, Leeds, Lincoln, Lintrathen, Liverpool, Lochee, London, Louth, Lymington, Lynn, Manchester, Margate, Melrose, Monifeith, Montrose, Newark, Newburgh, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Paisley, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Reading, Rugby, Saffron Walden, Salisbury, Scarborough, Sheffield, Southampton, Spalding, Stamford, Stirling, Sunderland, Taunton, Tillicoultry, Wakefield, Warwick, Worcester, Wrexham, York.

Section LV. — LITERATURE OF PHRENOLOGY.

1. Chronological list of phrenological works — 2. List of anti-phrenological works — 3. List of phrenological writers — 4. List of anti-phrenological writers — 5. List of Persons giving Testimonials in recommendation of the science, to Mr. Combe and Lord Glenelg as Secretary of State for the Colonies— 6. Opinions of antiphrenologists. Page 169— 217

Section V.— SratisticaL Estimates AND SUMMARIES. 1. Phrenological Societies — 2. Phrenologists, Antiphrenologists, &c. — 3. Phrenological Works — 4. Authors and Essayists— 5. Museums — 6.

Lectures— 7. Tabular Views. Page 218 — 234

SUPPLEMENT.

Phrenology and the Royal Society of London — Phrenology and Metaphysics — State of Phrenology in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Exeter, Stirling, and Taunton — Additional works — Caldwell’s Thoughts on Physical Education — Noble’s Essay on estimating Character — Writers on Phrenology— Additional Testimonials to Mr. Combe. Page 235 — 242 a ~

STATISTICS

OF

PHREN OLOGY.

Section I. Sketch Of The Progress Of Phrenology

‘“¢ In the intellectual, as in the physical, men grasp you firmly and tenaciously by the hand, creeping close at your side, step for step, while you lead them into darkness; but when you conduct them into sudden light, they start and quit you.” — W. S. Lanpor.

Science, from the Latin word Scientia, literally signifies KNOWLEDGE; but common acceptation limits the application of the term to a knowledge of the facts and laws of nature. In speaking of the progress of science, we mean nothing more than the progress of human knowledge concerning natural objects and events. This involves two distinct considerations, according as we look at individuals or at the race of man. The human race collectively may possess much knowledge on a given subject, while that knowledge is limited to very few individuals; or, on the other hand, the suin of knowledge possessed by the race may be small, yet that small amount of knowledge may be familiar to many persons. The object of this notice is not to show the progressive knowledge of the race, but the reception of that knowledge by individuals. ‘Though the advance of phrenological science has been extremely rapid, taking the British nation collectively, its reception by individuals has proceeded at a much more gradual pace; B so gradually, indeed, has the science spread, that for one person who now possesses a competent knowledge of phrenology hundreds or thousands have never heard it mentioned, and tens of thousands know it by name only. The very rapidity with which the science has advanced in the hands of a few individuals may be regarded as one of the main drawbacks to its diffusion; the discoveries of phrenologists, and their attempted applications of those discoveries, having been made at a much quicker pace than the slowly moving mind of the public could at all keep up with. Phrenology has been taught in Britain scarcely more than twenty years ; and already its supporters talk about entire changes and reforms in the moral world, to be founded on its principles, and to be built up by its diffusion. At the same time their opponents are asserting the whole system to be downright infatuation, and reasonably enough — the truth of their assertion being admitted — are predicting its speedy dissolution. To this prophecy the phrenologists retort, that their science, being an exposition of the facts of nature, cannot dissolve and die; and that so far from exhibiting any symptoms of fatal disease or superannuation, it is now spreading rapidly and widely through civilised nations. The correctness of this vaunt will be in some measure tested by the present historical sketch and the statistical details intended to follow.

About the year 1796, Gall began openly to teach his discoveries, upon which the science of phrenology has been since founded ; but their first rudimentary existence dates back thirty years previous. At this time the whole discoveries were little more than the coincidences of particular local protuberances of the cranium with particular dispositions or talents. It was several years later that the united abilities of Gall and Spurzheim — more especially the latter — systematised their discoveries into a connected outline of the science as now known. Dr. Bostock has

I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY. i)

published (Physiology, iii. 263.) a very different and utterly erroneous statement respecting the discovery of phrenology, which Dr. Elliotson has easily refuted (Phrenological Journal, v. 96.).

In Britain, a few unimportant notices of Gall’s labours appeared very early in the present century ; amongst which the attempted refutation in the Edinburgh Review, in the year 1803, may be particularly instanced. This early condemnation of Gall’s observations is attributed to the late Dr. Thomas Brown, of metaphysical celebrity ; and we need not see much ground for surprise that a metaphysician should reject the mental philosophy of Gall, then so exceedingly incomplete, and which Dr. Brown had learned only second-hand through an imperfect channel. Indeed, it is stated that he afterwards orally expressed a much more favourable opinion.

In the year 1806, as appears by the Christian Pioneer, the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal contained an unflattering notice of Gall; and in the year 1809 the disingenuous report of the French Institute, delivered a few months previously, was translated and printed in the same journal. It does not fall under the purpose of this volume to enter into any consideration of a report made by a foreign body ; but having been copied into an English journal of science, it may be observed that the report. is now generally admitted to have been extremely unjust towards Gall and Spurzheim as anatomists and physiologists, and to have been dictated by the fear of incurring Napoleon's displeasure ; that despot having “rated the wise men of his land for allowing themselves to be taught chemistry by an Englishman*, and anatomy by a German.”

By these and other unfavourable notices, the public press of Britain created an unfriendly feeling towards the founders of phrenology, and prepared the public to condemn the doctrines as unsound, and to ridicule them as

* Sir Humphry Davy.

B2

A. I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY.

absurd. The very few individuals who were more favourably disposed towards Gall could effect little in opposition to the current setting against him ; nor were they, perhaps, sufficiently acquainted with his store of facts to give themselves that steady reliance upon the doctrines, indispensable to persons who should openly defend them.

Though a small work on Gall’s “Theory of Physiognomy, with Hufeland’s Critical Remarks,” was published in London so early as 1807, it was not until Spurzheim’s first visit to England, in 1814, and the publication of the “‘Physiognomical System,” in the following year, that the claims and merits of phrenology were fairly and fully laid before the British public. The Edinburgh Review was at this time the mouth-piece of a grand tribunal for trying the merit of all works, literary and scientific, and pronouncing judgment upon all systems and doctrines, fanciful and philosophical. This formidable name, and the editorial we, sheltered a number of able and anonymous writers, who were at once the plaintiffs, witnesses, counsel, jury and judges in the trial of every defendant-writer appearing before the bar—not the bar of the public, for the public then enacted the part of spectator only —hbut before the bar of this assemblage of goose-quill potentates ; to one or more of whom was assigned the easy and irresponsible duty of filling all the aforesaid offices of plaintiff, witness, counsel, jury and judge upon each trial. The Physiognomical System was summoned to the bar ; was tried and condemned ; its author pronounced to be a knave, mountebank, hypocrite, impostor, ignoramus, and madman; the whole of his doctrines, “ anatomical, physiological, and physiognomical,” being declared “a thorough piece of quackery from beginning to end,”’—a collection of mere absurdities, without truth, connection, or consistency.”

Such was the courteous language and philosophical refutation applied by an Edinburgh reviewer, twenty years ago, to the most important scientific discovery ever made, and to a man whose honesty of purpose, candour in argument, and philosophical acumen have been since freely admitted by the most determined opponents of his doctrines! So low was then the state of public morality and science, so submissive was public opinion, that the mere declamation of an anonymous reviewer could deter hundreds, perhaps thousands, from giving any attention to doctrines professing to rest on positive facts, open to the senses of careful observers ; and which the reviewer did not disprove by counter-facts or by argument, but dogmatically condemned in language so disgustingly abusive, that it now appears little short of the marvellous how honest and discriminating minds could have been misled by a writer who ventured to pen the tirade, even anonymously.

A cudgel, in the hands of the coarsest brute that wears the human form, may give atemporary check to the moral and intellectual progress of the race, by the destruction of some master-spirit that leads it on; and it cannot be denied that the club of the reviewer, though not quite so fatal and effective, did most materially retard the diffusion of phrenology. Meantime, however, Spurzheim had not sat down idly to wait the reception of his work by the public or by reviewers. Immediately after arriving in England he dissected a brain, before an assembly of professional men, at the Medico-Chirurgical Society’s Hall, and at once made indisputably evident to their astonished eyes the correctness of his alleged discoveries respecting the structure of the brain. Subsequently, Spurzheim delivered two courses of anatomico-physiological lectures in London, but to audiences of very limited numbers. He also lectured in Bath, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Dublin, and Cork, still attracting very few auditors.

The courteous writer in the Edinburgh Review, not having yet seen Spurzheim’s dissections, and not having B 3

6 I. HISTORY OF PHRENCLOGY.

made the discoveries himself, had pronounced the “ anatomical doctrines” to be “ a thorough piece of quackery. ” By some strange mistake, Spurzheim seems on this occasion to have forgotten his quackery, and to have under-estimated the risk of encountering a mighty great man of science who had seen through it so thoroughly. Instead of shrinking from exposure, as such an egregious imposter — witness the Edinburgh reviewer — ought to have done, he boldly marched to Edinburgh, “and there met, helm to helm, tongue to tongue, brain to brain, the reputed author of the attack upon his science and his honour ;—there, in the defamer’s own lecture-room, ‘ with ‘‘ the Edinburgh Review in one hand,” to quote the words of a talented defender of the science, “and a brain in ‘‘ the other, he opposed fact to assertion. The writer of “ the article still believed the Edinburgh Review, but the “‘ public believed the anatomist, and that day won over “‘ five hundred witnesses to the fibrous structure of the “‘ white substance of the brain, while it drew off a large ‘‘number of admiring pupils from the antagonist lee- “turer.” The non-professional reader may be reminded that the fibrous structure of the brain was one of the anatomical discoveries at first so strenuously denied. Lectures on the anatomy and functions of the brain speedily followed up this triumph ; and Spurzheim remained above half a year in this the grand capital of his foes, ~ for personal foes some of them truly were. He sowed the seed : it was lost to sight ; but the harvest followed in due course.

Despite the condemnation of the Edinburgh Review, despite the frowns of University-professors, despite the deliberate falsehoods, the misrepresentations, the abuse, the dull jokes, and the clumsy ridicule, freely circulated against all aiders and abettors of phrenology, honourable and talented men now began to turn their attention seriously and perseveringly towards the science. Obsery-

I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY. vf ations soon multiplied facts ; the accumulated facts were acknowledged and generalised ; both facts and conclusions tallied with the doctrines taught by Spurzheim; and the evidences of his science, in Britain, soon ceased to rest on the word of the teacher alone, or on foreign records, a greater authority being found in the page of nature at home.

Spurzheim remained a few years in England, and his presence very thaterially contributed to fix phrenology in the minds of those who came into personal communication with him. One defender after another appeared on the stage ; and the science was pushed forward by almost imperceptible degrees, until it became so far diffused that society began to feel, if still backward to acknowledge, its force and consequence. Slowly, very slowly, however, did any palpable proofs of change in the public mind become apparent ; and the few individuals, whose intellectual penetration and moral courage urged them to study, and to avow their confidence in the new doctrines, were for some years almost buried under the shadows of authority and the incubus of opposing numbers. Still the science advanced and spread; and its steady progress cheered and increased its supporters, even while the public was refusing to receive it, and men in authority were resisting its diffusion to the utmost of their power.

In addition to the Physiognomical System, Spurzheim had published a smaller work, or abridgement of the greater, entitled “ Outlines of the Physiognomical System.” In 1817 he published an ‘“ Examination of the Objections made in Britain against the Doctrines of Gall and Spurzheim,” induced to this by the attacks of Doctor Gordon and others. His ‘ Observations on Insanity” were also published in 1817. The same year Sir G. S° Mackenzie published “ Essays on some Subjects connected with Taste,” in which phrenology was brought to bear against the views previously advanced by imaginative or

BA

Re ee”

inventive writers on taste. In the preceding year Sir George had openly avowed himself a convert to the new doctrines, to the astonishment of his compeers and scientific friends; and, as they doubtless then believed, to the certain injury of his scientific reputation. Dr. Parry of Bath, a physician and author of much repute, also gave his testimony of the value of Gall and Spurzheim’s discoveries. And Mr. Lawrence, who takes such high rank in the surgical profession, spoke very favourably of the system in 1819; but honestly admitted himself to be not sufficiently acquainted with its facts to give a decided opinion.

Yet these gentlemen had‘been anticipated by men of established name in science; for a work in explanation and defence of phrenology, under the title of a “ Sketch of the New Anatomy and Physiology of the Nervous System of Drs. Gall and Spurzheim,” was published in 1815, by Thomas Forster, F.L.S., author of several works on Natural History ; and the work contained also a very decided approval both of the anatomy and physiology of Gall and Spurzheim, in a letter from Dr. Leach, one of the most scientific naturalists of the present century. This Sketch was an enlarged reprint of an essay previously published in the Pamphleteer.

While a large portion of the periodical press was opposing its influence to the diffusion of phrenology, and not a few writers were guilty of the most unjustifiable attempts to injure the personal reputation of phrenologists, the Medico-Chirurgical Journal and Review lent its support to. the cause of truth, so early as 1817, by publishing a statement and defence of Spurzheim’s proceedings in Edinburgh, on the occasion of meeting Dr. Gordon, his detractor in the Edinburgh Review. The defence in question is stated to be from a correspondent, whose character “is beyond suspicion of misrepresentation,” and who was present at the time. This was followed up, in

I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY. 9g the next volume, by a review of the controversy between Spurzheim and Dr. Gordon, in which the conduct of the latter was denounced as “ most illiberal,’ and the anatomical discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim were fully admitted as established truths in science. At this time the reviewer still withheld his assent from the physiological portion of the discoveries, “ not from any want of respect “to Drs. Gall and Spurzheim’s talents. or veracity as ob- “servers of nature, but until inductions are multiplied ‘* by others, so as to produce greater probability, if indeed “ this can ever be the case.” This early countenance of a philosopher, then so cruelly persecuted by leaders in the medical profession, was a noble act on the part of reviewers depending on the patronage of the medical proftession for their continuance as journalists. Medical phrenologists owe a debt of gratitude to them for this independent proceeding. It is pleasurable to add that their efforts did not rest here, but have been repeated at various times since ; and that the same journal now decidedly supports phrenology in all, or almost all, its leading principles and details. This Review, taking rank with the first medical journals in the world, its cordial support is of more worth than that of all the merely literary reviews and magazines put together, when the subject is a science mvolving anatomy, physiology, and moral philosophy, in close and inseparable connexion.

In 1819 appeared the “ Essays on Phrenology” by Mr. George Combe, since so distinguished as a phrenologist ; and to whose hands the sceptre of Spurzheim has descended undisputed, — Phrenologorum facile princeps,” if we may so apply, to the leader of an immensely superior science, the botanical compliment from Humboldt to our countryman, Dr. Robert Browne. In 1820 we find Sir George Mackenzie again in the field, with his “Illustrations of Phrenology,” and Dr. Elliotson giving the sanction of his name and the aid of his pen to the support and diffusion

BO lO I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY.

of phrenological doctrines. Mr. Abernethy, — no slight authority in matters connected with medical science, — immediately afterwards wrote in recommendation of the philosophy of mind, naturally flowing out of the physiological discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim ; but, strangely enough, he declined to examine the evidences and physiological details.

It must be kept in mind that the Edinburgh reviewer had pronounced the “anatomical, physiological, and physiognomical” doctrines to be “a thorough piece of quackery from beginning to end.” Nevertheless, we find Forster, Leach, Mackenzie, Parry, Lawrence, Elliotson, and Abernethy, — all authors and men of science, and the major part of them belonging to the medical profession,— giving testimony in support of the physiology or philosophy of the new system, each according to the extent of his knowledge. Let us then pause here to ask who will be hardy enough to affirm that these persons were likely to be imposed upon by quackery in the subjects of their own particular pursuits or professions ? Naturalists, surgeons, and physicians, are surely amongst those least likely to be imposed upon by quackery !

Meanwhile, the anatomical discoveries of Gall and Spurzheim had become pretty generally admitted by the medical profession and the scientific part of the public. That their anatomical views should have been early received by many of those withholding assent to the physiology and philosophy, is readily explicable from the fact of a single brain, well dissected, sufficing to prove the anatomical department of phrenology ; while numerous and long-continued observations, impartially carried on by men of ability and knowledge, were required to establish the physiological and philosophical conclusions. Yet the anatomical discoveries, easily verified as they might be by others when once announced, had to struggle against contradictions, and were received unwillingly by many persons. Indeed, they were positively denied by some individuals for years after they had been demonstrated to large and intelligent audiences. No wonder that the physiology and philosophy should have been so much longer resisted ! It was far easier to deny than to examine.

The formation of the PHRENOLOGICAL Society in Edin- , burgh, early in 1820, may be looked upon as the most memorable event in the history of phrenology, that had occurred since Spurzheim’s visit to England and publication of the Physiognomical System. This Society concentrated the strength of phrenologists into a citadel, as it were, within the very city where phrenology, had been so hostilely opposed and so virulently abused. It is worthy of note that the institution of this Society should have been first suggested by a minister of the Church of Scotland, the Rev. David Welsh; a sufficient refutation of the charge of irreligion volunteered against phrenologists by several of their opponents ; the orthodoxy of this minister being pretty well witnessed by his subsequent election to a clerical professorship in the University of Edinburgh.

From this period the science advanced with accelerated progress, and in 1824 the Society published an octavo volume of Transactions, extending to 448 pages, and containing a series of papers illustrative of phrenology, both as a pure science and as one capable of the most important practical applications. The Transactions appear to have had a limited circulation, and no second volume was ever published, partly, perhaps, from the circumstance of the Phrenological Journal offering a vehicle for communicating to the public the most interesting or valuable papers read before the Society. For some time this Society proceeded vigorously enough, and the accession of new members was rather numerous and frequent ; but an illiberal spirit was afterwards manifested in refusing to allow strangers to participate in the discussions ; the younger members began to complain of intolerance and rudeness

B 6 ie I. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY.

from some of their seniors ; aud religious bickerings — one of the greatest curses of social intercourse in Edinburgh — joined with other circumstances, soon darkened the flourishing prospects, and within ten years from its first institution, the Society ceased to muster more than ten persons at its ordinary meetings, and sometimes barely half that number were visible in a hall capable of containing hundreds.

The enemies of phrenology chuckled over the declining strength of the Phrenological Society ; believing, or pretending to believe, that Phrenology itself would share the same fate, and that both science and Society would speedily become extinct. If any of them really believed this, time has since shown them to have-been egregiously mistaken, The Phrenological Society materially tended to advance and diffuse phrenological doctrines ; and its valuable museum yet continues to prove a most powerful auxiliary to the persevering labours of the true phrenologists of Edinburgh.

Meanwhile the science was continuing to advance in public favour every where outside the walls of the Phrenological Society’s Hall ; and was fast recovering from the check given to its early career by hostile reviewers. It is stated by Mr. Combe in the Phrenological Journal, that the sale of Spurzheim’s works ‘ completely stopped after “the appearance of the 49th number of the Edinburgh *« Review, and did not revive till 1819, after which it “went on rapidly, and it still proceeds ” (1826). *

* One of the first natural philosophers of the age, M. Arago, read a biographical notice of the late Dr. Thomas Young, to the dcademie des Sciences, in 1832. In this notice he gives a remarkable instance of the injuries inflicted on science and scientific discoverers by unjust abuse and denials in reviews. The two following sentences are extracted from Arago’s notice, as it appears in the Edinburgh New Phi- Josophical Journal, April, 1836; Ne. x., p. 238.: — * The scientific journals, when they are conducted by men of known merit, thus acquire, in certain matters, an influence which often becomes highly injurious. It is thus, I think, we must qualify that which the Edin-

Two years after this revival, the «“ Elementary Principles of Education” appeared from the pen of Spurzheim, the first avowedly phrenological work on _ education, though this application of the science had been previously pointed out. Dr. Poole had anticipated Spurzheim by a treatise on the same subject, in the Encyclopedia Edinensis, about the year 1819. The treatise of Dr. Poole was virtually a phrenological essay, although it was then judged expedient to avoid the use of phrenoloyical names and terms, lest these should excite prejudice against the essay. It is said that several anti-phrenologists, editors of periodicals, spoke highly of this work; thus giving a decided, although unintentional, testimony in recommendation of the science they were wont to vilify and condemn on other occasions. Perhaps in this one instance, and at this time, a veiled introduction of phrenology was allowable, particularly as the treatise was not ushered before the public on the individual responsibility of its author. But unless under very peculiar circumstances, such creeping in at the back door, and submissive prostration before public prejudice, is surely unworthy an independent mind, conscious of integrity and firmly relying upon the strength and certain supremacy of truth.

In here making an individual protest against such secretive use of phrenology, in somewhat strong terms, it is not wished to make disrespectful allusion to any particular phrenologist who may hold an opposite opinion, and act upon such opinion ; but it does appear to the writer of these pages to be a proceeding totally irreconcileable with truth and honesty. It is an avowed attempt to impose upon the public ; and it is as completely a robbery of burgh Review has sometimes exercised.”’... “¢ The Edinburgh Review attacked the scholar, the writer, the geometrician, the experimentalist, with a vehemence and asperity of expression, almost without example in scientific discussion. The public is generally thrown upon its. guard when it hears such impassioned language ; but on this occasion, it adopted, on the moment, the opinion of the reviewer,” &c.

emer

14 J. HISTORY OF PHRENOLOGY.

phrenologists, as it is a robbery for one author to steal the ideas of another, and put them forth without acknowledgement. It is idle to argue that such a course is taken for the benefit of the public. All such prostration of truth for a temporary advantage, is just setting up the lower feelings in supremacy over Conscientiousness ; and if the ultimate effect of this be not injurious, then farewell to all theories which assume the moral government of the world to be based on immutable laws. Phrenologists have freely censured other persons for neglecting their science, while writing on physiology or on ethical subjects, but what . can be said of phrenologists themselves, who are ashamed to acknowledge the sources of their borrowed ideas, and prefer the double fault of taking from one party to impose upon another! The writer here speaks only to the principle, and as an individual; fully admitting that Dr. Poole’s case has peculiarities which would prevent its strict application; and that he would not be justified in casting censures upon others who hold a contrary opinion, even while he maintains such opinion to be a moral blunder. .

In 1823 appeared the first number of the Phrenological Journal, a quarterly periodical, which has been regularly published from that time, and still continues to be so. It forms an useful record of the progress of phrenology, now extending to nine volumes, and including several most valuable essays, with a considerable number of elementary papers, cases, and remarkable facts. It has never been very popular, even among the phrenologists, and has been much complained of as representing the feelings and ideas of its conductors rather than those of the phrenological public ; but it seems to be now meeting with a more cordial reception. If not always satisfying individual minds, its readers should remember that such a journal, started in support of an unpopular science, must have entailed on its conductors much personal trouble and pecuniary loss; in return for which they could have only a very remote prospect of remuneration in any way, except what arises from the consciousness of labouring for the diffusion of truth and the good of their fellow-beings. The conductors, however, call upon phrenologists to support their journal ; and they complain that it is not done sufficiently. Surely this is unreasonable. The public will support a journal adapted to its wants; and if the editors of the Phrenological Journal do not adapt theirs to the public, the fault rests with themselves, and so also should its consequences.

It would be easy to specify particular objections to the plan and mode of conducting this journal; but whatever objections may be urged against it, we should not forget to look to the opposite siae of the scales. Though not perfect, there is much to approve ; and the three following propositions may be unhesitatingly advanced in defence of the journal: —First, that it has been highly serviceable to the cause of phrenology ; secondly, that every phrenologist will find advantage from reading it; and, thirdly, that in philosophical spirit and moral excellence, a single volume of it vastly outweighs the united value of every page and paragraph written against phrenology. *