rison is obviously not the fittest name for No 30. I consider that Dr S. is right, and that, while every faculty compares degrees in quality, No 30 has its functions in viewing one thing contrasted with another. I am at present inclined to think that the organ called that of Weight may be the organ of a faculty which gives us the notion of force or mechanical power; that which is required to overcome resistance. Resistance appears to be discovered but by the sense of touch, from which we derive all our notions of hardness, softness, roughness, and smoothness, and which are all of them modes of resistance. But there is something required to overcome resistance, or balance, of which our ideas are perfectly distinct, and which is capable of being compared in degree. This I apprehend is not momentum or vis inertiæ, because this is a quality or property not elicited or known until a body is set in motion. What I look for is that which produces orp revents motion. It is not resistance itself that overcomes resistance, because a body at rest is capable of resisting without exertion being made. Force is the only word that occurs to me at present for expressing the function of the faculty I suppose to exist, and I must distinguish the special nature of the force I have in view, to be, 1st, that derived from muscular exertion; that which we can produce by will. The discovery, that we have the power to overcome mechanical resistance to a certain extent, may be called Instinctive; but still the consciousness of this power must be derived from the intervention of a portion of the cerebrum. The notion of muscular power is abstract, i. e., we know it, though we are not exerting it. 2d, I refer the knowledge of force produced from other sources, such as the force produced by expansion, as in the examples of steam and the inflammation of gunpowder, and the forces of gravitation and attraction, to the same. faculty. We see no causes producing such forces; we are quite ignorant of the nature of that which produces will, and of the manner in which will produces muscular exertion. We know not how the expansive force is brought into action

; we

only know the fact, that its production follows certain conditions into which matter may be brought. We know nothing of the cause of attractive forces, or what it is that causes weight or gravitation. On the whole, I am induced to consider that there is a faculty which takes cognizance of force generally, and I think that this may be what Mr Simpson was in search of when he made his ingenious speculation on the organ of Weight, and that this organ may be that of the faculty of Force. In applying force in the game of billiards, in all cases, we do it by means of motion, and regulate it by quick or slow motion; but it is something more than motion of which our minds are aware when we determine to strike softly or strongly. There is here a cause and effect, however intimately connected, so as to appear to be one and the same thing, only communicated from one thing to another. We have distinct ideas of motion apart from ideas of force. It may be said that we know how to exert muscular force, and how to regulate the strength of a blow in order to produce any desired effect, from having seen others perform the action. But, although there can be no doubt that we learn many things from others, still, in searching for a special faculty and its function, we must place ourselves in the condition of the first man. I think it was Mr Simpson who made the observation, that, if an inexperienced person walked, for the first time, towards the brink of a precipice, he would not step over, but turn; this arises from reflection. Walking on the firm ground, we know that there is sufficient resistance from it to support us; coming to water, we perceive its fluidity, and instantly know that it will not afford resistance ; and when we come to the edge of a precipice we see nothing for us to put our foot upon, and we retreat from it. The ⚫ notion of resistance appears, therefore, to be necessary to us. We know, from experience, that a billiard-ball has something in it that resists, and we cannot make it move merely by willing it to change its position; we apply force to remove it. Resistance and force appear, therefore, to be different things,

each requiring a separate faculty by which we are enabled to estimate them. Motion is a fact learned through the medium of our senses, and experience tells us that motion is the effect of force applied. We farther learn, that force is communicated by motion; and perhaps we may say that motion is force in action after having overcome resistance. I now begin to be sensible that my powers will not enable me to carry on this analysis farther, and I must leave my ideas of resistance and force being cognizable by two distinct faculties to the consideration of our highly-gifted Phrenologists. Whoever will consider what is necessary for playing billiards, cricket, fives, foot-ball, &c., must come to investigate the faculties I have supposed, and it will give me very great pleasure should their speculations lead to any essentially useful research. I am, &c.

M.

ARTICLE VI.

QUESTIONS TO A PHRENOLOGIST, WITH ANSWERS.

Question 1.-" ARE the exterior elevations of the cranium, which denote the different faculties and passions, perceptible to the eye, or only to the feeling?"

They are perceptible to both. The power of perception, however, differs greatly in different individuals. Some perceive at a glance what others less gifted require some time to explore. Again, some will mark both position and size with perfect accuracy by the eye alone, while others will need the aid of touch to satisfy them. The percipient powers of the observer must, therefore, be taken into account, as well as the appearances observed. Actual measurement affords an unerring standard by which to judge of both absolute and relative magnitude.

Question 2.-" Are the limits of each clearly perceptible

to any eye or hand, or only to those of an adept in the science ?"

The absolute locality of each organ being established, it requires only observation and practice for any one to determine its site; but a facility in this respect, as in all practical arts, is to be acquired only by practice and experience. It is an error, to which inexperience is liable, to conceive prominence of organ to be the only indication of fulness of development; and hence arise many of the misconceptions of those who are unacquainted with the science. General full development, however great, will present no partial eminences. The Phrenologist measures the peripheral expansion, and the actual depth of the brain from the surface to the centre, and is influenced in his judgments by the quantity thus proved to exist.

Question 3.-" Is it certain that there are internal concavities in the cranium corresponding to the external con

vexities ?"

It is certain that the outward surface of the cranium represents with almost perfect accuracy the surface of the brain. The points of mere osseous prominence are few, and wellknown, and have no tendency to obscure or falsify the general results of phrenological inquiry. It is not unfitting here to remark, that it is in fact the brain itself which influences the form of the cranium; though the one is soft and yielding, the other hard and unbending, yet there are ample facts to prove that the osseous covering accommodates itself in every instance to the size and shape of its pulpy inmate. Not only does the cranium expand as the brain increases in size, but the converse has been fully demonstrated. A maniac at Paris suffered a considerable wasting of certain cerebral organs; the cranium in course of time subsided so remarkably as wholly to alter the outward form of the head. The agency by which such processes are carried on is familiar to every one acquainted with animal physiology. Bone, like all organized animal matter, is in a constant state of waste and re

pair, the absorbent vessels continually carrying off effete matter, the nutrient vessels as continually bringing a fresh supply. Further illustration must be needless.

Question 4.-" Can any Phrenologist venture to pronounce, with any certainty of success, on the character of a head submitted to the touch in the dark ?"

This involves two considerations, the perception of development by touch alone, and the estimate of the character resulting from the organs developed. On the perception by touch alone; this must depend greatly on the special power possessed by the person examining. If qualified by practice to examine, and possessed of accurate and discriminating touch, I have no doubt whatever that such a one could with perfect accuracy pronounce on development even unaided by sight; though why an imperfect mode of examination should ever be resorted to, when a more perfect one is attainable, I am unable to conceive. On the capability of pronouncing, from such examination, on characters, more is to be said. Character results not from mere existence of certain prominent faculties, but from the combined and reciprocal influence of the whole assemblage. To judge of the mere existence or the relative development of organs, is a very humble exercise of perceptive powers; to infer from the organization the prevailing character of the person endued with it, requires a profound exercise of the reasoning faculties: a faculty of observing form and magnitude will suffice for the former, the soundest ratiocination is requisite for the latter. An ordinary Phrenologist endued with power to judge of size and form, by the sense of touch, may, even in the dark, pronounce with tolerable accuracy on special development; it would require an accomplished and acute Phrenologist to pronounce on the resulting character with all the aid that vision can supply.

Question 5.-" Is there an organ of Imagination? Is that one organ, or are there various organs, according to various tastes for music, sculpture, painting, &c. ?"