STEWART.

This case certainly appears to be a corroboration of the truth of your science; and, backed by others equally so, would leave little room for any one to doubt its correctness. But the propensities of both son and father, according as they did with the development of their brains, would lead to the conclusion that these passions were planted in their nature, over which they appeared to have but little controul, as far, that is, as their own capabilities served them. This would, agreeably to the notions of some persons, imply, that with such strong passions inherited by nature, they were not so responsible for their actions.

PHRENOLOGIST.

What inference soever may be drawn, the fact is evident, that in proportion to the size of an organ, so is the strength of the faculty to which it ministers. That we may not charge Nature with any harsh dealings towards us, in giving us propensities particularly prone to abuse, I refer you to the article on Fatalism, in my Letters on Phrenology, as well as other parts of the book, where the subject is casually and cursorily touched upon.

STEWART.

I shall be anxious to resume the thread of our discourse some future time. The subject will yet, perhaps, afford some stronger evidence than has already been adduced. The strongest proofs of the phrenological system having superseded the old system of mental philosophy, will be gathered from practical facts, against the force of which persons cannot, with consistency, shut their

eyes.

With these words, on which particular emphasis was laid, the Professor glided away. I followed him to reply; but his speed was such as to leave an impression of his being carried along by the wind, and he soon totally disappeared. His presence had illumined the spot where we stood; for he was no sooner gone than I found myself in comparative darkness.

"The star of eve was bright

but light I had not sufficient to find my way down the steep umbrageous road which led to the house-the haunted mansion

"Of rude access, of prospect grand."

COLLOQUY IX.

STEWART.

AT our last interview you related a practical fact which bore forcibly upon the truth of your system. I then gave you to understand that evidence of this kind is such as will outweigh all other. Can the phrenological world supply a sufficiently large proportion of facts to satisfy an unprejudiced person of the truth, not merely of the principles, but of the details ?

PHRENOLOGIST.

This is, indeed, a very pointed question. Whether all the details are correct we cannot say. Some of them are looked upon by the phrenologist himself as merely probable. The truth of the science would, in fact, suffer nothing from some degree of incorrectness in this respect. If a part of the whole be true-if a few organs, and the inferences they afford, be established, the rest being perfectly false and inconsistent-the basis, the foundation is good, though the building be not complete. If some of the details be sound, and the whole, of which those details consist, will not constitute a perfect science, it is clear that the subject may yield others capable of making up a perfect whole. Phrenology is an intricate system,

and its advocates would be more than human if they could build without some evidences of imperfection being traceable. Shall phrenology, in all its relative particulars, be supposed perfect, while every other science is imperfect? Astronomy has not yet arrived at its acme, nor has chemistry, nor has vital physiology-simply because all the phenomena of the heavens are not thoroughly comprehended, because all the elementary particles of matter, and the affinities between them are not known, and because the connexion between an organ and its first moving principle is not understood. We must not suffer opinions-opinions which it is evident no science, pure or mixed, can furnish or warrant-to prejudice us against that in whose cause they are propagated. Erroneous

views are taken of Scripture and Sciences in general, and by their ablest supporters; yet none pretend to doubt either their authenticity or purity when divested of all the trammels which the finite mind, amid all its labours and anxiety to perfect, unavoidably entwines about them. Every scientific man, in whatever department he may move, occasionally makes errors, and applies the instruments placed in his hands injudiciously and erroneously: this does not prove, however, that the science he advocates is a baseless fabric, a mere fallacy. But they prove either one of two things, that he is not sufficiently conversant with the science, or that the science itself is imperfect. The phrenologist may err in some of his deductions, from a proper sphere of action not being yet assigned to every organ; or it may be, for I will not pretend to doubt it, from the science being yet in its infancy-yet faulty in some of the essential materials of which it is composed, to say nothing of the deductions which may be supposed to be afforded. But, admitting that all who differ in opinion with respect to the exact

capacity of this faculty, or the situation of that, cannot be right, I think there is no more than presumptive evidence, at least, that one or the other may not be so. We are only to question the perfectibility of that about which they differ; and no phrenologist pretends to affirm that his science is perfect beyond improvement. He regards it as in its infancy, and waits for the combined efforts of many minds to make it more complete. He sees, by what is already presented, a beautiful and interesting country before him, the interior of which only waits to be explored by some auxiliary parties, equally anxious with himself to explore with zeal. The difference of opinion, therefore, among phrenologists themselves, a fact so readily brought forward by the anti-phrenological body, is no argument of the doctrine being untrue in principle, or in its chief elements. Different minds think differently, and particularly when there is room for the subject admitting of it, owing to intricacy and incompleteness.

STEWART.

Phrenology, in the whole, is generally regarded as chimerical, and its advocates as not a whit better than the astrologers and alchymists of old, who deluded the weaker part of mankind by their fallacy and arts. I do not mean to put your science on a footing with these absurd and preposterous speculations; but I would mention the fact, that you and others may be stimulated to wipe away so odious, and certainly unfair, an imputation. If phrenology be true, it is decidedly a noble system, but the public must be satisfied of its truth; then the strength of your party will be increased, and as there will be more labourers, the building will be sooner perfected. The phrenologist may not have been assailed by sound and