colours, than different organs of Individuality to take cognizance of different objects. If this opponent to phrenology had attempted to shew that each organ of the brain has various capacities, in a certain manner, he could not have resorted to a much better illustration. COLLOQUY XV. STEWART. MUCH has been said about phrenology being useful in Legislation; at all events, that it will not be long before its usefulness, in this particular way, will be made obvious. Do you hold the same opinion? PHRENOLOGIST. I cannot see exactly in what way the science will be rendered available in this respect. It is contended by us, on the most reasonable grounds, that a man with a good and sound organization cannot commit those flagrant crimes which are punishable according to the laws of the country; and what shall it profit the judge or the criminal to know that the crime has been committed with a bad organization? Take the case of murder for example. It may be some amelioration of the offence to learn that the deed was not perpetrated from malice aforethought, from premeditated revenge; and it may be pleasing to all parties, especially the phrenologist, to find that the organization favoured the idea, or the fact, of its having been the effect of momentary passion and impulse. If premeditated, the crime, in our view, is magnified; but the criminal deserves our greater pity if he had, which he most assuredly would have, an organization thus impelling him to perpetrate the horrid deed. The motives which would impel a man to murder are numerous, and these motives may be suggested agreeably to the character of the conformation ; but the Legislature cannot consistently provide against motives: it looks to the act, and punishes accordingly. Now all that phrenology can furnish is the motive by which the culprit has been actuated. There are instances in which murder is considered no crime; but this is when it is committed in self-defence, and which may be done by the best of men without the violation of any law, Mosaic or otherwise. The same principles apply to every other species of crime. A thief may steal from various causes; but the Legislature cannot consistently make a difference between that committed from actual want, and that to gratify some selfish passion. He who steals from the first cause is, perhaps, less censurable; and if the punishment should happen to be mitigated by a considerate tribunal, it would be not in consequence of a man having a particular organization, but because of the urgent necessity, the peculiarity of the thief's situation. It matters not whether the criminal has the organ of acquisitiveness large he steals, and knows its offence. The act and knowledge of its crime make him a criminal, let the motive by which he was actuated be what it may. STEWART. But if any doubt prevail in regard to the identity of the person supposed to be the criminal, say the murderer-if a man were suspected who had a good and sound organization, and against him there was only circumstantial evidence, in the absence of any suspicion attaching itself to another party, surely phrenology may then be applied advantageously, and found available and useful in the trial, if, that is, it possesses the qualifications assigned to it. PHRENOLOGIST. It may. The suspicion would be increased in proportion to the meanness of the development; and if, for example, the murder had been committed in so secret a manner as to afford nothing more than circumstantial evidence, and if, meantime, the suspected person had an organization under which he could, according to phrenological rules, perpetrate the crime, and artfully conceal it, the more positive would that evidence become; and yet no judge would be warranted to receive this as evidence while phrenology is unavoidably an imperfect science, as far as its practical tendency is concerned. The man thus organized may be religious, and restrained from the commission of a deed so opposed to the laws of God; while the man who is conceived to have a good organization, may, for reasons already assigned, not have it. The organs favourable to the commission of this crime may be only moderately developed, but yet in a state of great activity, at which the phrenologist cannot arrive. The skull, too, may be unusually thin, as in the case of the soldier I mentioned, when nothing external would lead to the inference, and of the brain filling the local internal depression of the skull. Phrenology would afford strong presumptive evidence of this fact or that; but while it is surrounded with so many difficulties in the way of its application-difficulties which appear to be insurmountable, certainty, such as a judge in a matter of life and death absolutely requires, cannot be arrived at. STEWART. It would, nevertheless, appear, according to your declaration and argument, that, if it were desirable to ascertain the motive by which a person is prompted to infringe the laws, phrenology might be useful. PHRENOLOGIST. In the absence of all knowledge concerning the motive it would, if it could be applied unerringly; but this absence is not frequent. The inducement is usually as soon known as the crime itself. Our knowledge of man, of whom we judge, in a great measure, by ourselves, in conjunction with the circumstances which attend the case, are sufficient of themselves, in general, to enable us to fathom the motive. If many circumstances with which it is desirable we should become acquainted, and in the ascertainment of which phrenology may certainly assist us, could be learned by phrenology only-if, rather, we had no other means of ascertaining those particulars of which this science would inform us, its utility would be most obvious. But it seems to me utterly inconsistent to talk of a thing's usefulness when its use is already superseded, or when it can bring nothing additional to our common stock of knowledge. STEWART. Phrenologists would not, in general, accord with you here. PHRENOLOGIST. Perhaps not. I am most willing that the science should outrun all others in practical usefulness; but the |