brought against phrenology, but which it would be well for the opponents of the system to cease adducing in the present day; because, being no longer true, it must often recoil upon him who urges it against the phrenologists. This is the false assertion, that few or no persons of ability, or of any scientific reputation, lend countenance to the phrenological doctrines. There was a time when the assertion might have been made with truth in this country. Twenty years ago, scarcely a dozen names of passable repute could have been drawn from the list of British phrenologists. Perhaps Leach and Parry were amongst those best known at that time; but even then several other persons had commenced their phrenological studies, who have since risen to eminence. The objection has now quite ceased to be true, and never was a valid reason for rejection. But ideas will still linger among the less informed, (both the novices and those whose increasing age causes them to drop into arrear in their knowledge,) long after they have been given up by more intelligent persons; and accordingly, scores, perhaps hundreds, still successfully reiterate this assertion as the readiest means of getting the subject dismissed in contempt from the minds of others, whose want of correct information upon it thus renders them the blind dupes of confident defamers.

Phrenologists may now boldly meet the objection by a counter statement; and if the contempt of phrenology, formerly shown by scientific men, deterred other persons from attending to the subject, the respect evinced by several of them at the present day should have the effect of recommending it to attention. In a recent number of this journal, we quoted the Monthly Magazine, which roundly asserted, that "not a single man of sterling genius, not a single literary or scientific person of real eminence, has deigned to become a promoter of phrenology; nay, amongst the thousands of so-called phrenologists, scarcely a dozen of them could cut a respectable figure in any assembly of third-rate talent." In the present number we have quoted the admission of an opponent (Dr. Roget), probably more competent to speak on this matter than is an anonymous tale-writer in a magazine, to the effect that "many men of eminent talents and extensive knowledge" have avowed their belief in phrenology. These must have place amongst the "so-called phrenologists ;" and to admit or to deny the fact of men of talent being found amongst phrenologists, would thus seem to depend pretty much upon the information and veracity of the writer. But what is to be the test of "real eminence" in science or literature? Or of respectability of figure, sufficient for an "assembly of third-rate talent?" Before proceeding to suggest some tests applicable to Englishmen, amongst whom we do not altogether

relish the invidious duty of choosing a jury of respectables, we shall copy a dozen names from the list of members of the Phrenological Society of Paris, as published on its institution, in the year 1831:

ANDRAL, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris.
BLONDEAU, Dean of the Faculty of Law of Paris.

BROUSSAIS, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and First Physician of the Val-de-Grace.

CLOQUET, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, Surgeon to the Hospital of Saint Louis.

COMTE, Professor of Philosophy in the Athenæum.

DAVID, Sculptor, Member of the Institute.

JULLIEN, Editor of the Revue Encyclopédique.

LACOSTE, King's Counsel.

LENOBLE, Head of the department of Public Instruction.
PONCELET, Professor in the Faculty of Law of Paris.
ROYER, First Secretary at the Jardin des Plantes.

SANSON, Surgeon to the Hôtel Dieu.

Here, in one phrenological society, during its first year, were the full dozen of persons surely respectable enough for "an assembly of third-rate talent;" and we have some notion that amongst these twelve there are included more than "a single literary or scientific person of real eminence." If not, we must enquire what test our magazinewriter would apply by way of discovering the presence of "real eminence" or "third-rate talent?" And now for the tests at home. Are the professorships in British Universities to be esteemed as any evidence of ability or knowledge, in the persons filling them? The following names may be adduced as examples made apparent by this test:

DR. ELLIOTSON, Professor of Medicine, London.
DR. GREGORY, Professor of Chemistry, Glasgow.
DR. HUNTER, Professor of Anatomy, Glasgow.
DR. NICHOL, Professor of Astronomy, Glasgow.

REV. DAVID WELSH, Professor of Divinity, Edinburgh.

MR. WHEATSTONE, Professor of Natural Philosophy, London.

Is the holding of similar appointments in Ireland to be taken as a test? The following names may then be added:

DR. EVANSON, Professor of Medicine, R. College of Surgeons.
DR. JACOB, Professor of Anatomy, R. College of Surgeons.
MR. LLOYD, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Dublin.
MR. LONGFIELD, Professor of Political Economy, Dublin.
DR. MAUNSELL, Professor of Midwifery, R. College of Surgeons.
DR. MONTGOMERY, Professor of Midwifery, College of Physicians.

Are we to seek amongst the Fellows of the Royal Societies of London or Edinburgh, for persons supposed to be competent to pass muster with other scientific men? We again name half a dozen in example of this test:

MR. BINDON BLOOD, F. R. S. E.
DR. W. T. EDWARDS, F. R. S. L.
SIR G. S. MACKENZIE, F. R. S. L. & E.

Dr. Patrick Neill, F. R. S. E.
DR. D. B. REID, F. R. S. E.
MR. H. T. M. WITHAM, F. R. S. E.

Are we to seek amongst the fellows of other chartered and scientific societies in England, for men likely to "cut a respectable figure in If so, add the following names

any assembly of third-rate talent?"

to those given above :

MR. JOHN BUDDLE, F. G. S.

DR. T. J. M. FORSTER, F. L. S.
MR. WILLIAM HUTTON, F. G. S.

CAPT. MACONOCHIE, F. G. S.
MR. W. C. TREVELYAN, F. G. S.
MR. H. C. WATSON, F. L. S.

Are members of the Royal Irish Academy held of any weight in the question? Then add the following:

DR. JAMES ARMSTRONG.
MR. W. W. CAMPBELL.
MR. ANDREW CARMICHAEL.

MR. RICHARD CARMICHAEL.
PROFESSOR HARRISON.
DR. HENRY MARSH.

Is the authorship of approved works, more particularly those connected with the medical or political philosophy of mind, any test of ability and fitness to judge the merits of a science of mind, founded on organisation? The following half dozen writers may be named:DR. E. BARLOW, author of Essays in the Cyclopædia of Practical Medicine. MR. W. A. F. BROWNE, author of Lectures on Insanity.

MR. R. COBDEN, author of the Treatises by a "Manchester Manufacturer." SIR W. C. ELLIS, author of the Treatise on Insanity.

MR. C. MACLAREN, editor of the Scotsman.

DR. W. WEIR, lately co-editor of the Glasgow Medical Journal.

If we may also refer to the editors of esteemed medical periodicals, or other able journals, countenancing phrenology, then we cite the editors of the following:

The Analyst.

The Brit. and For. Med. Review.
Chambers's Edinburgh Journal.

The Lancet.

The Medico-Chirurgical Review.
The Naturalist.

And whilst alluding to editorial personages, we shall give the names of the six gentlemen who, at different times, conducted the former series of the Phrenological Journal, before it came into the hands of its present proprietor. For ability and general information, they will not sink in a comparison with any other of our half dozens :

DR. ANDREW COMBE.
MR. GEORGE COMBE.
MR. ROBERT Cox.

DR. RICHARD POOLE.
MR. WILLIAM SCOTT.
MR. JAMES SIMPSON.

Our ambition rises as we write, and though the first intention was that of giving only a dozen names, the enumeration beyond has already quadrupled the first dozen, and, could space be conveniently allowed, we should be tempted to quadruple these forty-eight. If we

have omitted the names of many able phrenologists in Britain and elsewhere (indeed, as phrenologists, more able than some of those who are included), or of men eminent in other departments of knowledge who countenance phrenology, it has been occasioned by the impossibility of naming all, and by the limitation into groups of half a dozen each, according to the several tests proposed.

Whilst we are thus excluding several very able phrenologists, we have still no hesitation in saying, that the preceding forty-eight names belong to persons, who, taken together, are as respectable for intellectual ability and general information, as would be any forty-eight selected chemists, geologists, botanists, zoologists, or cultivators of other sciences respectively. Try the phrenologists on other subjects than mere phrenology; and also try the chemists, the geologists, the botanists, the zoologists, on other subjects than mere chemistry, geology, botany, or zoology (as the case may be), and we are widely mistaken if the phrenologists would not be found at least the compeers of the latter. It may be said that these are not all of them persons particularly devoted to the study of phrenology. This would be true; but let one dozen devoted phrenologists be selected from the forty-eight, and subjected to the same ordeal with one dozen of the chemists, &c., and the result would be still more in favour of the phrenologists. But, notwithstanding this willingness to submit the supporters of phrenology to any equal test in comparison with others, we must still maintain that the proper estimate for scientific men, is the ability and success with which they pursue their own especial studies. It would be as ridiculous-nay, it would truly be more ridiculous to measure the abilities of a phrenologist by his knowledge of chemistry, as to estimate the talents of a chemist by his phrenological information.

Before concluding these remarks, we shall yet resort to one other test, afforded by the last meeting of the British Association, as giving very conclusive proof that other scientific men do look on the phrenologists as proper associates for themselves in their scientific investigations. That the proposed phrenological association, mentioned in the preceding article, should have been commenced exclusively by members of the British Association for the advancement of science, is in itself something very like evidence that phrenology is zealously supported by persons evincing a considerable interest in other scientific studies; because the British Association has hitherto shunned the subject of phrenology, and has thus repelled rather than attracted phrenologists, who must have joined the association from other motives than the love of this department of science. But mere membership of that association is so much a matter of course to those

desiring it, that it cannot be looked upon as any indication of the individual members being received as fit associates of their co-members. Yet, when we find the phrenological members sitting on the committees, or filling higher offices in the management of the sectional (which is the scientific) business of the association, it must be regarded as indisputable evidence that they have claims to respect on other grounds than those of their phrenological acquirements; that they are not phrenologists alone (which, in our eyes, is their highest qualification), but are also the fellows of other scientific men in their own several departments. In looking over the list of office-bearers in the Sections, published in the Athenæum, we recognised the names of several persons publicly known as phrenologists, and also those of some others who express favourable opinions of the science in private society. The latter we shall not enumerate, lest it should be unpleasant to the parties; but the names of the sixteen following gentlemen have been before the public on other occasions than the present, as those of persons favourable to phrenology; and some of whom are well known to be particularly devoted to the study of that science.

MR. J. BUDDLE, Vice-President of Section C.
MR. W. CARGILL, Secretary of Section F.
MR. B. DONKIN, Vice-President of Section G.
MR. J. FIFE, Vice-President of Section E.
MR. T. M. GREENHOW, Secretary of Section E.
PROFESSOR GREGORY, Committee of Section B.
MR. J. I. HAWKINS, Committee of Section G.
MR. W. HUTTON, Committee of Section C.
MR. W. MORRISON, Committee of Section E.
DR. P. NEILL, Committee of Section D.
PROFESSOR NICHOL, Committee of Section A.
DR. D. B. REID, Committee of Section B.
MR. W. C. TREVELYAN, Secretary of Section C.
MR. H. C. WATSON, Committee of Section D.
PROFESSOR WHEATSTONE, Committee of Section A.
MR. H. T. M. WITHAM, Committee of Section C.

As there are seven sections, the average of publicly avowed phrenologists exceeds two on each committee. Were we to add others, whom we know to be favourable to the doctrines, but whose names we have not seen publicly connected with them, the average would exceed three on each. It is to be borne in mind, however, that such a test is highly disadvantageous to phrenologists, because, whilst there is no section for phrenological science, its cultivators can be received only on the score of their other attainments; and this, as before remarked, is a very trying test for scientific men who usually achieve eminence by devoting their attention to some single department almost exclusively. Accordingly, none of the sixteen persons named in this list are at the summit in the respective departments in