"First, This appears to be the head of a male.

"Second, The organs of his intellectual faculties were small. The frontal lobe of the brain being narrow, and the fibres short.

"Third, His moral faculties appear to have been weak; the coronal region being low, particularly Benevolence and Conscientiousness.

"Fourth, The organs on the sides of the head were unusually developed. Destructiveness, Cautiousness, Secretiveness, Firmness, and Self-esteem, all appear to be large.

"From these developements, I infer that he was a criminal-if so, probably a murderer. Phrenology, however, does not pretend to say what crimes a man has committed, but what he would be inclined to commit. He might have manifested some Veneration; if so, he was a superstitious man. He was a very selfish man, regarding his own wants and wishes more than those of others, and was self-willed. To sum up the rest in a few words, he was proud, stubborn, insubordinate, ambitious, avaricious, cunning, more desperate than courageous, depraved, and licentious. I regard it as decidedly a bad head.'

"We believe the above is an accurate summary of what was said upon the occasion. He also stated that if he were a murderer, he would be more likely to accomplish his purpose by stealth, having large Cautiousness and Secretiveness, than boldly and openly.

"Now for the facts of the case. The skull was that of a negro man who had murdered his master, or rather who was condemned and executed upon this charge. In connection with some other slaves of the same person, he had been punished very severely for theft. The master was waylaid, and killed at his own gate. The proud spirit of the negroes revolted at the punishment of their crime, and they sought revenge in the death of their master. Although the evidence against the negro executed for this crime, was sufficient, in law, to convict him, there remained, and still remains, on the minds of many, a persuasion of his innocence. To the last, he persisted in declaring his innocence of the crime for which he was condemned. At the same time he said he knew who did it, and was cognisant of the intention, and, in fact, was engaged in the plot-who committed the deed he would not tell. Such are the principal facts of the case, so far as we are acquainted with it. Upon comparing these facts with the character given by Mr. Fowler, from the developements of the skull, we think it must be acknowledged that phrenology fairly and triumphantly stood the ordeal to which it was subjected."

English Correspondence.-A gentleman connected with the Bank of England, in a letter, dated London, February 29, 1840, to the editor of this Journal, remarks as follows:-"Phrenology, I think, is making great strides in this country. Whenever I mention the subject, I find nine out of ten favourably disposed to it among young and intelligent people. You can scarcely pass by a chemist shop in London, without seeing a phrenological bust conspicuously displayed; and the safe of elementary works on the science is, I understand, enormously large. When, in conjunction with these facts, we take into consideration its more extensive popularity in France, and its very general practical application in the United States, we may believe that the position of those who now blindly oppose or obstinately refuse to listen to its principles, will not, in the course of five or ten years hence, be of the most enviable nature."

Among the evidences indicating the advancement of phrenology, we find that the science is beginning to be introduced and treated in a respectful manner, in some of the best medical works which now issue from the press. Many facts might be stated in confirmation of this remark; but it is our object to notice, at the present time, only one work on this subject, viz. "Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Medicine, by William Stokes, M. D." These lectures first appeared in the "London Medical and Surgical Journal," and have since been republished in this country among the standard volumes of the "American Medical Library." Dr. Stokes has sustained for many years a high rank in his profession in Great Britain, and is the author of several valuable works on medicine, as well as of numerous able articles in the English Quarterly Reviews and Journals. Dr. Dunglison, the American editor of these Lectures, informs us that the "author, from his situation, has every opportunity for confirming or disproving his theoretical considerations by the test of practice; he is well informed on every thing that has been done, and is doing, in various countries; and he possesses, withal, powers of discrimination and exposition with which few are favoured."

We have two objects in noticing the remarks of Dr. Stokes on phrenology: 1st, To call the attention of members of the medical profession to the importance of understanding the functions of the brain; 2d, To direct the attention of phrenologists to the infimate and necessary relations which pathological conditions of the brain sustain to phrenology.

It is a fact, no less lamentable than true, that the great majority of the medical profession have thus far been either entirely ignorant or regardless of the true physiology of the brain, in the treatment of VOL. II.-22

disease. Their attention has not been directed to its nature and importance, while engaged in pursuing their professional studies, and, consequently, their future observations, and the practice of medicine, have availed them but little on this subject. While the functions of other organs of the body have been made the objects of special study, those of the brain have, in a great measure, been neglected. It might be inferred, a priori, from the position and anatomical relations of this organ, that it exerted a most powerful influence over the whole system, whether in a healthy or morbid condition. It is unnecessary to dwell here on the nature and number of diseases connected with the brain and nervous system, or to show, from their intimate relations to other organs, the powerful influence which they must necessarily exert over the whole body. No disease can be treated rationally and successfully without a knowledge of the functions of the organs involved, and just in proportion to the relative importance of such organs, will be the importance of correctly understanding their functions. And we need scarcely say that physicians, of all others, should understand the true physiology of the brain-the most important viscus in the human body.

No phrenologist can read the remarks of Dr. Stokes without being deeply interested. He will perceive that some of the strongest evidence, and most positive facts in favour of his science, are derived from pathology, and that arguments may be drawn from this source, which must silence for ever the cavils and objections of opposers. Dr. Stokes, in his lecture on "diseases of the nervous system," introduces the subject of phrenology as follows:-"The fact of delirium occurring so frequently in inflammation of the membranes of the brain, is of considerable importance, as showing, not that membranes of the brain have any thing to do with intelligence, but as supporting the opinion of those who believe the periphery of the brain to be the seat of the intellectual faculties; and here is a fact which, as far as it goes, is in favour of the doctrines of phrenology. If we compare those cases of cerebral disease in which there is delirium, with those in which it does not occur, we shall find that it is most common in cases where disease attacks the periphery of the brain-as in arachnitis. The cases in which we observe great lesions of the brain without delirium, are generally cases of deepseated inflammation of a local nature, or inflammation of those portions of the brain which the phrenologists consider not to be subservient to the production of mental phenomena. This fact, also, would seem to confirm the truth of the opinion of the difference in function between the medullary and cortical parts of the brain. It is supposed that the cortical part of the brain is the organ of intelligence,

while the medullary portion performs a different function. It is, however, a curious fact, that in delirium the inflammation is confined to the surface of the brain, and that, in cases of deep-seated inflammation, the most important symptoms are those which are derived from the sympathetic affections of the muscular system."

The above remarks not only confirm the doctrines of phrenology, but tend to throw light on many curious and hitherto inexplicable facts, concerning diseases or injuries of the brain, and their effects on the muscular system. This subject opens a most interesting and important field of investigation to the physician, and especially to the surgeon. Probably there is no department of pathology more inviting to inquiry, or which would prove more fruitful in its results. The remarks of Dr. Stokes on this subject are excellent, and we would earnestly commend them to the attention of all our medical readers.

In his lecture on "encephalitis," Dr. Stokes devotes several pages to the pathology of the brain, with particular reference to phrenology. As this, in our opinion, is the clearest and most condensed view of the principles involved on this subject, which can be found in any published work, we are induced to copy Dr. Stokes's remarks at some length. Besides, this Journal is read by, at least, between two and three hundred physicians, who should be thoroughly acquainted with the functions of the brain, as disclosed by recent discoveries; and, perhaps, no better authority could be cited on this subject than that of Dr. Stokes.

But, while we are highly pleased with the arguments adduced by him in support of phrenology, we must say that his censures on phrenologists for neglecting or undervaluing, in their researches, the pathology of the brain, are too severe, and, as far as our knowledge extends, they are unjust. It is true, there may have been some cases where phrenologists, not the best informed on anatomy and physiology, have discarded pathology, and attempted to defend the principles of their science independently of, and, possibly, in opposition to, facts deduced from morbid conditions of the brain. But this is by no means the case with the leading advocates of the science. Andral, whom Dr. Stokes himself often quotes as high authority in all departments of pathological anatomy, was for some time president of the Paris Phrenological Society, and perhaps it is not stating more than the truth to say, that there is not a more distinguished pathologist on the continent of Europe. We are not concerned, however, that the reproofs of Dr. Stokes, on this point, will do any injury.

After some general observations on diseases of the brain, and their effects, Dr. Stokes remarks as follows:

To return again to the interesting consideration of great loss of cerebral substance with preservation of intellect, I have to remark, that this circumstance is one which some persons might quote against the opinion that the brain was the organ of intelligence; and I believe this fact has been laid hold of by the opponents of phrenology, and put forward as a powerful argument against the truth of its doctrines. Thus, for instance, in the case of Mr. O'Halloran's patient, who lost a large portion of one hemisphere, and yet, with all this mischief, the powers of the intellect remained unimpaired; it would not seem strange if a person should say, here is vast destruction of substance without any lesion of intelligence; how then can the brain be considered as the organ of thought? But let us look at this matter in its true point of view. In the first place, it is to be remembered that cases like this are rare-that they are to be considered as the exception, and not as the rule. I have already shown you, that it is a law of pathology that lesion of structure and lesion of function are not always commensurate. This law applies to the brain, as well as to all the other organs. To say that the brain was not the organ of intelligence, because in cases of extensive cerebral disease that intelligence was preserved, is false reasoning. A man will digest with a cancerous stomach; is it to be argued from this, that the stomach is not the organ of digestion? I have seen the liver completely burrowed by abscesses, yet the gall-bladder was full of healthy bile. I have seen one lung completely obliterated, and yet the respirations only sixteen in the minute, and the face without lividity. What do these facts prove? Not that the health of organs is of no consequence, but that with great disease there may be little injury of function.

By reference to the original laws of organisation, we may (in some cases at least) arrive at an explanation of this fact. You know that organs are primitively double; and we find, that though the fusion at the median line is produced by developement, yet that the symmetrical halves still, to a certain degree, preserve their individuality. Thus we see how the laws of organisation affect the phenomena of disease, and recognise a provision, acting from the first moment of existence, against the accidents of far distant disease.

Now, admitting that the brain is the organ of thought, we may suppose that, as in case of partial obstruction of the lung from inflammation, the remainder of the organ takes on an increased action, so as to supply the place of that which has been injured or destroyed. We know that if one lung be hepatised, the other takes on its functions, and carries on the process of respiration for a time. That this is the case, is shown, first, by life being continued, and, secondly, by the