shall probably feel constrained to speak in relation to it more im detail, and state our reasons for the conjecture we have offered. In still plainer terms, we know who the editor is, and could openly name him, were the act allowable; and his views in the reprint are too plain to be mistaken. To convince him of this, we are confident that the following remarks, in another publication, which he also edits, are from his pen.

"The truth or falsehood of phrenology is not to be established by angry declamation, but by calm and unprejudiced observation. Facts on both sides numerically arranged-over and over again observed and recorded by unbiased observers ran alone settle this disputed point of physiology, for such it is. No study-using the term in the sense of thinking or of musing-can lead to a decision; nor can it be facilitated by personal invective, or undue ascription of improper motives to either party."

"Calm, temperate, and courteous discussion on a subject of science may tend to the developement of truth."

These sentiments, we say, come from the pen of Dr. Roget's editor; and in most of them we fully and heartily concur, and should be sincerely rejoiced to see such of them as are correct and practical carried into effect. They invite from us, however, a few further remarks.

When

Who, we respectfully ask of the worthy editor, first began with "angry declamation?" the phrenologists or the anti-phrenologists? and we reply, the latter. Nor will the editor contradict us. Dr. Gall was mildly and courteously communicating to his classes, in Vienna, the facts he had collected by "calm and unprejudiced observation,' he was assailed by the priesthood, not merely with "declamation and invective," but by fierce denunciation, until, at length, at the instigation of that fraternity, he was compelled by the Austrian government to close his lecture-rooms, and suspend his instructions.

Who, after this act of anti-phrenological tyranny, spent several years in the further collection of facts, by "calm and unprejudiced observation," practised in most of the large cities of continental Europe, under toils and perseverance that have never been surpassed? It was Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, the founders of phrenology, Who was it that afterwards, in Great Britain, with the temper of fanatics, and in language but little more refined than that of Wapping or Billingsgate, abused and denounced these same two illustrious philosophers, as "German doctors"'—“ fools”—“ ignoramuses”- "charlatans"-" mountebanks"-and "impostors?" It was the intolerant and persecuting anti-phrenologists of the kingdom-and we might say, of the whole kingdom-for there was scarcely a pulpit, press, or

rostrum for debate, in any portion of Great Britain, that did not, at one period, unite in the infuriated clamour. Nor was there, at this stage of the contest, a single angry or retaliating word returned by the two great phrenologists, or their friends and followers. And as to the "undue ascription of improper motives," that uncharitableness is practised in hundreds of instances by anti-phrenological writers needs no proof. Even the two extracts we have taken from Dr. Roget's essay, abound in such "ascriptions."

As respects the learned editor's admonition, to collect "facts on both sides" of the question, that appears to us to be a blundersomething strongly resembling a bull. It would come from an Irishman, therefore, with a better grace than from an Englishman. True and pertinent "facts on both sides" of a controverted point in science cannot exist. The notion is ludicrous, implies a contradiction, and brings nature into discrepance and conflict with herself. One fact in philosophy can never oppose another. Fictions and groundless assertions may clash with each other, and also with facts. But nature is never at variance with herself. In the controversy between the friends and foes of phrenology, as far as our acquaintance with it extends, the latter have arrayed against the facts of the former, nothing more philosophical than assertion and fiction, invective and abuse. If the editor knows of any case in which means of controversy other than these have been employed by his party, we shall be gratified at being informed by him, at what time it occurred, and where the record of it may be found.

"Calm, temperate, and courteous discussion on a subject of science may tend," says the editor, "to the developement of truth." This is true, and is much more valuable than all the other sentiments our extract from him contains. Let it, then, be reduced to practice, and the issue be recorded.

We have already asserted, and now repeat, that neither Dr. Roget, his editor, nor Dr. Prichard, has heretofore selected a single principle, doctrine, or fundamental proposition in phrenology, and, in a fair argumentative contest, attempted its refutation. They have caviled, skirmished, manœuvred, and availed themselves of stratagem, and nothing more. We shall now afford them an opportunity to aim at something higher, and thus achieve for themselves, if they can, as anti-phrenologists, a more honourable reputation, by a manly effort to overthrow the science which so much annoys them. The following are some of the main pillars of that science, which being broken or beaten down, the superstructure must fall. We respectfully invite them, therefore, singly and collectively, as the Samsons

of their party, to attempt the overthrow of this superstructure in science.

1. In the present condition of man, the brain is the organ of the mind, in all its operations. Without the aid of that organ, the mind can no more perform a single action, than the organ can, without the co-operation and aid of the mind.

2. The brain is not a single organ, but an aggregate of many organs, each being the seat or instrument of a special faculty. And these organs, though intimately connected, and influencing each other, as parts of the same whole, perform each its own function, without mutual interference, hindrance, or control.

3. As are the size and configuration of the brain, so are the size and configuration of the skull. By a skilful examination of the head, therefore, the form and dimensions of the brain may be ascertained.

4. Other things being alike, the size of a single cerebral organ is the correct measure of its strength; and the size of the whole brain is a measure equally correct of the strength of the brain as an aggregate and consequently of the scope and power of the mind, which it subserves.

5. The positions of the several cerebral organs, and the mental faculties connected with them as instruments, are known.

6. The brain consists of two hemispheres, each containing the same number of separate organs, and each organ resembling its corresponding one, in faculty and function. In case, therefore, an organ in one hemisphere be injured or destroyed, the function may still be performed, by its correlative organ in the other hemisphere; in like manner, as when one eye is injured or destroyed, we see with the other; while the same is true of the nostrils and ears.

Such, we say, are some of the propositions on which phrenology essentially rests; and should all or either of them be overthrown and demolished, the science must be surrendered. We again, therefore, invite Dr. Roget, Dr. Prichard, or Dr. D, the editor, or all of them united, to select at option one or more of these propositions as points of attack. Let the assault by those chieftains be fair and philosophical; free alike from outbreaks of temper, exceptionable language, groundless and unworthy insinuations, efforts to deceive and mislead by misrepresentations and stratagems, and all other forms of discourtesy, sinister dealing, and disrespect; let this invitation be accepted by our opponents, (with the privilege, if they please, to enlist, as auxiliaries, Dr. Sewall and his retainers, the Hon. John Q. Adams, the Hon. Judge M'Lean, and company,) and

they will not fail to be met by an antagonist, prepared to maintain the truth of phrenology in a spirit and manner alike unexceptionable. And let an enlightened and impartial public be judge of the issue the refusal of either party to engage in the tourney, to be regarded as a defeat.

ARTICLE II.

ORGAN OF MUSCULAR MOTION.

For the American Phrenological Journal.

The experiments which have been made by Flourens, Bouillaud, Magendie, and others, have induced many persons to suspect that muscular motion might have some direct connection with the cerebellum; and upon this point, Mr. Combe has arrived at conclusions which I can now demonstrate to be true. He says

"The great size of the cerebellum, the circumstance of its lateral portions not bearing the same relation to the middle part in all animals, and also the results of some late experiments, have sug gested the notion that it may not be a single organ, but that, although Amativeness is unquestionably connected with the largest portion of it, other functions may be connected with the other part. This seems not improbable; but as we have no direct evidence in proof of the fact, or in illustration of the nature of these supposed functions, it is unnecessary to do more than announce the proposi tion as one worthy of investigation. If I might hazard a conjecture, founded on such facts as are known, I would presume the middle portion to be the organ of Amativeness, and the two lateral portions. to be those of motion. The middle portion springs from the same roots as the organs of the other propensities, while the latter portion, by means of the pons varolii, are placed in connection with the corpora pyramidalia, from which originate the organs of the intellect that preside over motion."

It has been so generally believed that a large cerebellum, indi. cated by great breadth between the mastoid processes and a large neck, gave evidence of a large organ of Amativeness, that I was greatly surprised, four years since, to find the space between said processes and the neck to be quite small, (the former measuring only 3 inches,) in a hoy, fifteen years of age, who died, in the charity hospital of New Orleans, of the consequences of onanism.

The middle portions of the cerebellum were greatly developed downwards, measuring 14 inches below the inferior margin of the crucial ridge. A similar developement of the cerebellum obtains in the skull of a Mr. Kennedy, who was executed for the perpetration of a rape. As the facts in this case are interesting, and as my examination of the skull may have a happy influence on some, I have extracted both from the Southern Democrat, as reported by Dr. Johnson, of Claiborne, Ala.

"In May, 1837, the well-known phrenologist, Dr. W. Byrd Powell, came to Claiborne, and having heard much of phrenology, and the astonishing precision with which Dr. P. is said to delineate character from an examination of the skull, and being prevented by professional duties from having examined the claims of the science upon our belief, I determined to test the skill of the doctor, by submitting to his inspection the skull of a man whose character was well known to me. After attentively regarding the skull for a few minutes, he proceeded to describe the temperament and complexion of the man, and then entered upon the leading traits of his character. "His Amativeness, said he, is enormously developed, and although he was cautious and timid, he thought his moral powers were too small to enable him to restrain its improper manifestation. This he regarded as the leading trait of his character. He considered him to be base and cowardly in his disposition, and greatly deficient in every species of moral refinement. Intellectually, he regarded him as strongly marked with mathematical and mechanical powers, and qualified for their practical manifestation.

"The subject of the above remarks was named George Kennedy, born in Annapolis, Md. He was a good practical surveyor, and a carpenter by trade-an ingenious mechanic. In illustration of his Amativeness, which the doctor regarded as his ruling passion, we have the following facts. At the age of fourteen years, he was known to attempt the violation of a girl seven years of age. At the age of eighteen, he attempted the same offence upon a girl nine years of age. At the age of twenty-two, he married an amiable and respectable girl, with whom he lived four years. Shortly after his marriage, his wife detected him in making a similar attempt upon a servant girl in his chamber. At the age of twenty-five, he violated a girl ten years of age, in the state of Virginia, for which he was hanged. A few minutes before his death, he confessed that his greatest desire through life was such an intercourse with female children. He was such a coward, that the boys bullied over him in the streets. As a phrenological illustration, I have presented the skull to Dr. Powell.