it when other thoughts should occupy the brief moments betwixt him and eternity-can we not see that the same feeling animates the crowd that, under other circumstances, impelled the dying culprit to commit the deed for which he sufferedan excited Destructiveness. The power of an enlightened public opinion ought to be exerted to abolish our capital punishments. The sacredness of human life can never be recognised and acknowledged by the people until governments are taught to respect it.

I need not trespass more upon your space. I feel assured that Mr Small, on reflection, will repent of the precipitancy with which he has given forth opinions hastily formed, upon such imperfect data. If he will call upon me to inspect my collection, consisting of nearly 150 casts, I flatter myself he will find evidence sufficient to satisfy himself of the truth of Phrenology. I am, Gentlemen, yours respectfully, THOMAS BEGGS.

NOTTINGHAM, August 26. 1844.

The accompanying cut is an accurate copy of a sketch of

Saville's head, taken by a friend of Mr Beggs, Mr Reuben Bussey, a young artist of Nottingham, who has paid. some attention to Phrenology. So far as it indicates the form of the head, the cerebral development appears to have been of a kind so inferior, that, although Saville had been much better brought up, it would have perfectly accorded with the gross brutality of his character. Even an average brain, if treated as Saville's was, would manifest inferior moral qualities. In looking at the cut, no phrenologist can fail to be struck with the low position of the ear (indicating a great development of the basilar part of the brain), the largeness of the occipital region, and the moderate depth of the region of the moral sentiments. Mr Bussey, on seeing Mr Beggs' collection after taking the sketch, was struck with the general resemblance of the head to that of Hare, except in the superciliary ridge, which is much smaller in the latter. That Saville was well furnished with Individuality and Eventuality, appears from the the readiness with which he invented the stories about his

ancestors, as well as from what the girl Tate mentioned in reference to his courtship of her, namely, that during their walks" he told her more strange, pleasing, and curious tales than would fill a newspaper." Destructiveness may be very large in a head without being in the least" protuberant;" and the sketch is far from bearing out Mr Small's assertion that Combativeness was "moderate."

Some of the particulars quoted on p. 386, make it probable that Saville's brain was by no means a healthy one.

Understanding that the conclusions of Mr Small have been greedily adopted at Nottingham by many persons ignorant of Phrenology, we have thought the case worthy of notice, although it presents no uncommon features, and is less instructive than if a cast of the head had been taken.

III. NOTICES OF BOOKS,

I. Zeitschrift für Phrenologie, Nos. III. and IV.; Heidelberg : Karl Groos. 1843.

The German Phrenological Journal, Nos. III. and IV.; Sept. and Dec. 1843. Edited by GUSTAV VON STRUVE and EDWARD HIRSCHFELD, M.D.

We have now received three additional Numbers of this Journal, and are glad to see the work conducted with so much spirit and regularity; for it has been published precisely on its quarter days, although, from the defective communication for books between Heidelberg and Edinburgh, the recent Numbers have not reached us in due season.

Of No. III., a brief account was given in a previous article, (p. 51 of this volume.) We revert to it, however, in order to notice some of the papers more fully than our limits for merly allowed.

The following among other interesting cases of excitement of particular cerebral organs, is related by Dr Hirschfeld, under whose own observation it fell. "Mr J. H. Arnholz," says he, "is a highly talented carriage-builder in Bremen. He had invented a carriage which, containing the moving power within itself, should be capable of being propelled without the aid of horses. The mode of executing the design had engrossed his every thought, and so absorbed all his faculties, that he was frequently alarmed at his own condition, and made vigorous efforts to avoiding thinking on it. He felt uneasiness in the region of the heart; which, however, disappeared when he succeeded in diverting his thoughts. He suffered, during the same period, severe pain in the head. Dr Hirschfeld put

the question, whether the pain extended over the whole head? when he replied, that it did not, and pointed with his fingers to the two sides of the head, at the temples, where the organ of Constructiveness is situated, as the spots in which the pain was almost exclusively felt, and from which it proceeded to the region of the reflecting organs. The excitability was so great, that while he made a slight drawing to illustrate the nature of his machine, he felt the darting pain in the temples; and mentioned this fact without any question having been put to him on the subject." This case occurred in the spring of 1843.

Mr Von Struve has given his readers an able article entitled, "Johannes Müller and Phrenology," in which he remarks, that" when we compare the attacks which Ackermann and his contemporaries made against Dr Gall's doctrine, with the objections which are urged against it by Johannes Müller and the other opponents of our day, the attentive observer must remark, that physiology in general has made a wonderful approach towards Gall's views since the beginning of the present century. Now, it is universally conceded, at least, 1st, That the brain is the site (or the organ) of the higher faculties of the mind.' (Müller, Physiologie, p. 852.) 2d, 'That nothing can be legitimately urged, à priori, against the possibility of Gall's doctrine being true.' The objection is now confined to a denial that Gall's organology has a sufficient basis in experience." This objection proceeds uniformly from men who reject the testimony of all phrenologists, as interested partisans, and who decline themselves to institute a series of observations in the manner pointed out by phrenologists, sufficient to enable them to arrive at conviction for themselves. Mr Von Struve remarks, that Müller's Physiology of the mental functions may be divided into two completely separate parts. In the one, he appears as a direct and independent observer; and what he teaches in this character is out and out a confirmation of the phrenological doctrine; in the other, he follows the views of other physiologists, and becomes an opponent of Phrenology; even then, however, forbearingly, and without that intermixture of bitter abuse which is so frequently found in their works. Mr Von Struve substantiates the first assertion by numerous quotations from Müller's work.

The next article, also from the pen of Mr Von Struve, is "On Primitive Christianity, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism." After pointing out the great differences between Judaism and Christianity, he proceeds to observe, that "both Protestantism and Catholicism must address themselves to very influential classes of faculties, otherwise they could not have

subsisted for century after century side by side. Protestantism excites more the intellectual faculties and Combativeness; Catholicism, more Ideality, Tune, Constructiveness, Colouring, and Destructiveness: the former, Self-Esteem; the latter, Love of Approbation. If it were possible for Protestantism to satisfy the Ideality, Tune, Colouring, Form, and Destructiveness of mankind, as fully as Catholicism does, it would supplant Catholicism. On the other hand, if the latter could excite the reflective faculties, Combativeness, and Self-Esteem, as strongly as Protestantism does, Protestantism would be forced to yield the ground." He remarks that Protestants sooner become lukewarm in their religion than the Catholics; one cause of which is, that the Protestant churches present no objects to interest the class of faculties which is so strongly addressed by the Catholic worship; and that if the Protestants were once to conquer their aversion to ornaments and ceremonies, there would be danger of their falling back into Catholicism, as is at present the case in France, England, and Scotland.* "Protestantism owed its rise to the activity of the intellectual faculties, Combativeness, and Self-Esteem; and it can extend itself only where free scope is given to the powers which called it into existence. These were, unfortunately, too early circumscribed. The reflecting intellect of Protestantism was already chained by Articles of Faith in the times of Luther and Melancthon. Boundaries were erected by Forms of Belief which were insurmountable; for he who surmounts them separates himself, by the very act, from his fellow-believers. The limits which checked reflecting intellect, restrained also Self-Esteem: Protestantism began by overthrowing a belief founded on authority, and immediately set up Protestant authority to guide belief, in place of Catholic authority. The wakening spirit of self-reliance was imprisoned in its very dawn, and Combativeness received a different direction. Instead of turning themselves against every kind of misinterpretation and disfiguration which Christianity had undergone since the death of Christ, the Reformers directed themselves against their fellow-Protestants who sought to introduce new forms of belief. Dissension arose between different sects of Protestants; and their doctrine could not gain that expansion which it might have attained in a free field of action. The Protestants surrendered, bit by bit, their holiest and most important

66

The prevalence of Puseyism indicates a tendency, in England, to relapse into Catholicism; but, thanks to our Free Church," the faculties of Self-Esteem, Combativeness, and Intellect, have too ample a scope for activity in Scotland, in the fair field of Protestant dissension, for Catholicism to have any chance of gaining the ascendency among us.

3

principle-the purification of Christianity from the admixture of all human corruptions-while they carried their attacks no farther back than to the Council of Nice. Between the death of Christ, however, and the date of that Council, as many errors had sprung up, which should have been cast off, as arose between that Council and the Reformation. In this manner, Protestantism was cut off, in its early bud, from the source of its life-giving power; and it could neither grow nor extend itself, but continued to drag on a miserable existence, nourished by the juices which it originally contained, instead of eliminating new ones for its support. Its top, here and there, begins to wither; its branches are hard, and its twigs are falling off. Many persons wonder at these appearances; but they have much more reason to be surprised that the stem still stands so straight and firm." This article is accompanied by lithographic portraits of Luther and Melancthon, the founders of the Reformation; of Gregory VII., the founder of the supremacy of the Pope; and of Alexander VI., whose scandalous character was one of the circumstances which led to the Reformation. We observe, however, that the writer has omitted to give any phrenological description of these heads, or of the characters connected with them, in the article itself, to illustrate which they are presented; and only in the last leaf of the Journal introduces a brief notice of them, from Dr Spurzheim's work on Phrenology in connection with the Study of Physiognomy. Phrenology is a practical science, and in every work on the subject opportunities should be embraced of instructing its readers in the art of observation. The correspondence of these heads with the natural dispositions and talents of the men, is very striking; and these dispositions and talents produced great historical results. The opportunity was, therefore, an excellent one of giving a practical lesson on the science.

Among the miscellaneous notices and remarks with which this Number concludes, is a notice, by Dr Hirschfeld, of Professor Marx's observations, in a recent work, on Phrenology in England. Dr Marx speaks disparagingly of Phrenology and certain phrenologists, and then proceeds to pass high encomiums on Hanwell Asylum and Dr Conolly. Dr Hirschfeld remarks, that it is to be regretted Dr Marx did not think of asking Dr Conolly what he thought of Phrenology, and whether it had been of any service to him in producing the results in the treatment of the insane which Dr M. so much admired. Dr Conolly would have told him that he himself is a phrenologist; that Hanwell first acquired its high reputation under the management of an avowed and zealous phrenologist, Sir William Ellis; that it subsequently passed into the care of a