first and third propositions), “because I wished to demonstrate “the true value of the authority of Gall and Spurzheim ;" and, as if all this had not been enough to satisfy Dr C., he repeats once more, “ I only observe, that wishing, as I said, only to “ refute the assertions of the two founders.”—(Vide Phrenological Journal, vol. iv. p. 394.)-Keeping these assurances in view, I would ask what Sir William really means ? Does he still hold the writings of Drs Gall and Spurzheim as the only authentic record of phrenological doctrine, to the exclusion of all other phrenological authors, or does he not ? If he does, why, after his own explicit remonstrances, does he pronounce to be phrenological, a proposition which is not to be found in the works of its founders ? If he does not, then why did he interdict Dr Combe from adducing the statements of other Phrenologists as expressive of phrenological doctrines ? And how can be expect Dr C. to defend his opinions in the face of his, Sir William's, own prohibition and denial of their authenticity? And why, while they are still under his ban as unauthentic, does he now resort to them as if they did represent the true doctrine?

Keeping this statement in view, I beg leave to present you with copies of my letter to Sir W. H., and of his answer about admitting Dr Spurzheim as a party to the arbitration.

LETTER-GEORGE COMBE TO SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON, BART.

“ Edinburgh, Nov. 22, 1827. “MY DEAR SIR,–Our arbitration-question has been long postponed, owing to the absence from town of the parties, the “ illness of Dr Scott, the marriage of Dr Christison, &c.; but now the

umpires are ready to resume, and so am I. i beg " leave to mention, however, that Dr Spurzheim has written to “me that he will positively lecture in Edinburgh in January

next; and, as you stated at the first meeting of the umpires, " that you did not attack Phrenology, nor my exposition of it, " but solely the statements of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, it has “ occurred to me that the most proper course of proceeding is

to delay farther discussion till Dr Spurzheim's arrival, and " then that

you and he should proceed to a final determination “ of the points in dispute. The declaration, that you contro“ verted only the statements of Drs Gall and Spurzheim, placed “me, from the first, in an improper position; for I did not re

present them, and had no authority to refer any views or “ opinions of theirs to arbitration. In fact, I could proceed

only in so far as my own views were the same as theirs; “ which certainly, with very few exceptions, they were ; but “ still these founders of Phrenology might well object to their “writings being condemned by arbitrators before whom they “ had not been heard. Dr Spurzheim's presence in Edinburgh

“ will remove this objection. If, however, you decline this “ proposal, I am ready to proceed. Mean time, remain, &c.

(Signed) « Geo. COMBE." LETTER-SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON TO GEORGE COMBE, ESQ. “ MY DEAR SIR,—I have to apologize for allowing your note “ of 220 November to lie so long unanswered. I wished, pre“ viously to writing you, to see Dr Christison, and to ascertain “ whether he was prepared to proceed with the arbitration, “ which he is. I am also quite ready to meet you and the um“ pires whenever it suits their convenience and

yours. “ Your proposal of surrendering the defence of the arbitra“tion to Dr Spurzheim, I must beg leave to decline, for various

reasons which it is here needless to enumerate. I certain“ ly never said that I did not attack Phrenology, but solely “ the statements of Drs Gall and Spurzheim ;' for I know not “where Phrenology is to be found except in the statements of “ its authors; nor can I imagine any other expositor entitled to

represent their doctrine with an authority equal to that of its “ founders. It is, however, only in so far as you coincide with “ Drs Gall and Spurzheim in regard to the most fundamental

positions and the plainest facts that we have any controversy ; “and you agreed to enter into the arbitration because you were “ willing to peril their credibility, and the possibility of the “ system, on the truth of the assertions which I offered to dis

prove. Hoping that we may soon bring the points at issue to proof, I remain, &c.

(Signed) " W. HAMILTON." The meeting of the umpires suggested in my letter of the 22d November did not take place till 220 December. It was then held in the Clyde Street Hall; but I positively affirm that Sir William Hamilton only referred again to the crania that had been previously rejected, and did not produce one jot of additional evidence to substantiate any of his propositions.

Sir William says, that Dr Spurzheim was actually present “ at one of the meetings of the umpires.” This is correct: but he forbears to state what occurred. Owing to a previous engagement, it was impossible for me to be present; but Dr A. Combe, accompanied by Dr Spurzheim, attended, not as parties, but as spectators. These gentlemen waited with much patience to hear and see Sir William's evidence; but they assure me, that, though personally present, he neither said any thing, nor did any thing, in furtherance of the objects of the refer

Sir William proceeds—" Mr Combe does not state that every “ facility was offered him to examine the crania on which I was “ to found my public demonstration, and that he was pressed “and goaded, and even taunted into an acceptance of the same

specimens for the use of his own lecture in the Assembly « Rooms.”

ence.

This matter is very easily set at rest. On 25th April, 1827, I wrote to Sir William as follows:-" I beg to mention, that, “ at the request of the committee for the relief of the distressed

operatives, I shall deliver a lecture on the evidence of Phre.

nology, in the Assembly Rooms, at one o'clock on Friday, “and will be happy to exhibit as many skulls of the collection “ used by you as will be allowed to be cut open. Farther, if you

will honour me with your attendance at the Clyde Street “ Hall, on Friday morning at ten, I shall saw open as many “ skulls as you may select, carry them to the Assembly Rooms, “ and abide by the evidence they afford, both as to parallelism " and the frontal sinus."

Sir William wrote in answer, that he was allowed to offer me “the whole 50 skulls sent by M. Royer to the Museum ;" but that as Professor Jameson was averse from disfiguring the heads, all that he could obtain was permission for me “to open, “ before the audience, one of the two cavities (the frontal sinuses) “ in any three crania that may be selected.” Farther, he declined my offer of opening as many skulls as he might select belonging to the Phrenological collection. On 27th April I wrote him, “ Unless I am permitted to saw open at least a “ dozen of them (the skulls,) not selected on account of evi“ dent peculiarities, but taken at random, so as to afford a fair “average, I shall be obliged to decline admitting them as

, " evidence.”

My reason for rejecting the skulls which I was not allowed to saw open was, that, without being opened, the audience in the Assembly Rooms could not see the sinuses, and, in that case, had I not reason to apprehend that the whole would have terminated in a controversy about facts which the auditory had no sufficient means of verifying? My wish was, that the question should rest, not on assertions on the part of Sir William Hamilton, and contradictions on mine, but on the evidence of the senses of those present.

In conclusion, Sir William says, “I am confident of being • able to bring the truth of the doctrine to a decision that will “ satisfy all impartial judges.” Sir William has all along been confident of doing so much, while hitherto he has accomplished so little, that I am not very sanguine in expectation from this announcement; but it would afford me the greatest pleasure if he shall keep his word. I have spent much time and taken much trouble with Sir William Hamilton; but although from other opponents I have learned something in the way either of correction or elucidation, from him I have derived not one iota of knowledge. Words, and words alone, have been poured out upon me, and the stream has been so copious, that sense and fact have seemed to me to be too often swept away in the flood. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

GEO. COMBE. Edinburgh, 30th Jan. 1829.

LETTER FROM SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON.

To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury.* Sir,-Might I request you to allow the insertion of the following observations, in supplement of the letter which appeared in your last paper.

I there forgot to notice Mr Combe's denial, “that it had been “ any doctrine of his that irregularity in the opposite sides of the “ cranium • is the effect, and consequently the index of disease in “ the brain.'” I beg to ask that gentleman, whether I am wrong in supposing a philosopher to hold a doctrine which he not only merely asserts, but even applies in parrying an objection to his system ; and whether he himself did not, on this ground, endeavour to extenuate the ludicrous illustration of phrenological truth which the cranium of the atrocious robbermurderer of Bali afforded ? Among other similar contradictions, I had shown by phrenological measurement, that the skull of this monster greatly surpassed that of George Buchanan, in all the intellectual and moral organs, and was equally deficient to it in all the brute propensities, and in particular in that of murder or Destructiveness. Mr Combe, in his lecture in the Assembly Rooms, finding that the two sides of this cranium were not perfectly correspondent, (not a skull in a hundred, as observed by anatomists, is found symmetrical, and the want of symmetry in this specimen did not certainly exceed the average,) boldly asserted, that because thus, what he called “ twistsed,” it was a diseased, and consequently an incompetent, subject of comparison. Will he likewise deny, that he attempted to show of the same skull, that there was a deficiency in the organ of Conscientiousness, by holding up in contrast with it, a thing he called the cast of a head, and which exhibited the superior and lateral parts towering into two mountains divided by an interjacent valley? On this anomaly, which he then took for his mean standard of proportion, there could not probably be found, on phrenological principles, an honest individual in Europe ; but had it been convenient to have proved the owner of this skull a virtuous character, it would not probably have been difficult to discover on the nonce, among the phrenological apparatus, a counter monstrosity, exhibiting the sides of the cranium sloping from the vertex like a penthouse. Such is the opinion that arrogates to itself the name of science ! Mr Combe, it ought to be added, was on this occasion enthusiastically applauded,by the believers for his triumphant vindication of their faith, by the scoffers for his unconscious exposition of its absurdity. In

my first letter I also neglected to append a note to the

This letter appeared in the same paper with the two preceding letters of Dr Spurzheim and Mr Combe.

passage where the name of Hufeland is introduced. Among other controverters of Phrenology, that author had been alluded to by me in my correspondence with Mr Combe, printed in the Phrenological Journal; and the editor, in a note, says, that he “ had seen an extract from a late publication, stating that Hufe“ land, on more careful and extensive observation, had confessed “ himself obliged to renounce his opposition, and to adopt the very “ doctrine to which he had formerly objected.” He then refers to an article in the same number, on the progress of Phrenology in Germany. On turning to this article, which purports to be from a foreign correspondent, it no doubt appeared, from a translation out of what was said to be a "recent" work of Hufeland's, that he had ended in becoming a decided convert to Phrenology. It was not, however, long before I perceived that the whole was a mere mystification. For, in the first place, the “recent tri“bute" paid to the science is extracted from a work of which the second edition, now before me, is printed twenty-three years ago : in the second place, this “ tribute” is paid in the introduction of the very work in which he treats Phrenology to its refutation: in the third place, the translation, in essential points, is little better than a fabrication. I am far indeed from supposing that the editor of the Journal, whoever he be, was a party to the deceit; but the reference to Bischoff's Darstellung should have pointed out the hoax, had he not been ignorant of the history of his own opinion. It is, however, evident from the example, that scepticism is not amiss in regard even to phrenological quotations; and in regard to facts, I have never yet met with a statement of any consequence to the system, which, in its accuracy or its application, could bear a critical examination. I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,

W. HAMILTON. 16, King Street, 29th January, 1828.

P.S.--I observe an erratum in the third paragraph of my last letter, which reverses the meaning :—for are symmetrical,” read “ are not symmetrical."

LETTER FROM MR GEORGE COMBE.

To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury. Sır,-In consequence of the assertions contained in Sir William Hamilton's letter to you, published in the Mercury of 31st January, it becomes necessary for me again to trouble you with a reply.

Your readers will have discovered long before this time, that philosophy or facts in nature attract, in a very subordinate degree, the notice of Sir William Hamilton. He has commenced