to facts, and would not be reproached with having accused his opponent of misrepresentation, without the shadow of a reason, he will favour me with an answer to the four following questions :

1. Does he not abandon Gall's assertion in regard to the symmetry of the convolutions of the opposite lobes of the brain?

2. In what respect have I mis-stated his and Gall's opinion, as published in their works, in regard to the co-relation of the frontal sinus and the superciliary crest ?

3. In what respect have I misrepresented them in regard to their doctrine of the greater development in children of the lower region of the brow?

4. Does he accept my challenge to try the truth of Phrenology on his own series of skulls, and conceding to him every possible advantage ?

I again defy the Phrenologists to produce a single practical anatomist who will declare that the phrenological propositions are not ludicrously false.

I say nothing in reply to Mr Combe, as I beg leave to decline his interference in the present controversy between Dr Spurzheim and me. I should be sorry, especially at the present busy juncture, to occupy your columns with any answer to his long-winded statements, however easily refuted ; and am unwilling to co-operate in distracting attention from facts of some importance to personalities of none. This also I wish to be my last letter on the present subject.

I remain, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,

W. HAMILTON. King Street, 31st January, 1828.

me.

Postscript.-As my letter has not been published to-day, I hope I may be permitted to add a few observations, suggested by reading the report of Dr Spurzheim's lecture on the frontal sinus, which appeared in the Scotsman of this morning. Mr Combe asserts, that he has never learnt any thing from

This cannot be maintained of Dr Spurzheim. I am rejoiced to find, from this report, that the Doctor abandons his old opinions, and now actually inculcates the very doctrines which I have offered to prove, and which are diametrically opposed to those hitherto maintained by the Phrenologists.

In the first place, instead of holding that the sinus exists ONLY in old age, and as the effect of chronic insanity, by only supporting the feeble negative that they are not found “ in every in“stance,” he now evidently acknowledges that they are generally present. So far, therefore, he admits my second counter-proposition.

In the second place, instead of maintaining that the presence of the sinus is always indicated by a bony crest, he now admits that the crest “ sometimes accompanies a sinus, and sometimes “not.” He thus adopts my fifth counter-proposition.*

In the third place, Dr Spurzheim seems to admit that the sinus exists in children after seven years old ; and so far, therefore, acquiesces in my third counter-proposition. In denying the existence of the sinus before the age of seven, he is, however, opposed to all the most illustrious anatomists, (Morgagni, Albinus, Bichat, Scarpa, &c. &c.,) who trace the sinus back even to the fætus.

But though Dr Spurzheim, less indocile than Mr Combe, conceives it fas ab hoste doceri, he does not, however, appear more inclined to acknowledge the tuition. He quietly advances the new opinions, as if these were his spontaneous statements, and not involuntary concessions, extorted from him in the teeth of all that he had ever previously taught. Of this, however, I do not complain ; and am better pleased to be saved, by these admissions, (which I shall hold good, if not denied by Dr Spurzheim,) the trouble of bringing my second, third, and fifth counter-propositions to a proof. With the suicidal effects of these admissions to Phrenology, I have at present nothing to do; nor do I advert to the other statements of Dr Spurzheim concerning the sinus, which I know to be not less untrue than the more notorious absurdities, from which he would now fain be allowed quietly to back out. Of the five phrenological propositions, on the truth of which Mr Combe originally agreed to peril the truth of Phrenology, and the credit due to its founders, three are now given up by Dr Spurzheim himself; and the two not yet surrendered are even more untenable than the others. (See Phrenological Journal, No XV. p. 390.) I suspect the Phrenologists now begin to nauseate facts, even more than they formerly abominated reasonings.

Notwithstanding your notice, I trust that Dr Spurzheim may be allowed to insert an answer in your journal to this communication. 28 February, 1828.

While we readily accede to the proposal which Sir William Hamilton so very handsomely makes in favour of his opponent, we must still repeat, that, in doing so, we do not hold ourselves as departing from the resolution expressed in our last.

LETTER FROM MR GEORGE COMBE.

To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury. Sir,-Acquiescing, as I fully do, in the propriety of terminata

The report of Dr Spurzheim's lecture on the frontal sinus, referred to by Sir W. Hamilton, will be found in section IV. of this article.

VOL. V.-No XVII.

ing the controversy, in your columns, on the subject of Phretiology, between Sir William Hamilton and me, I solicit the favour of your inserting the Report of the Umpires, which I have only this day received ; and also an Extract from the Phrenological Journal, No I., published in October, 1823, relative to the fifty skulls, which establishes that the Phrenologists have never varied in their account of the purposes for which they were selected and sent to Edinburgh; and remain, Sir,

Your
very

obedient servant,

GEORGE COMBE. Edinburgh, 8th February. “ Proceedings of the Arbiters in the Reference by Sir William

“ Hamilton and Mr Combe, on the Anatomical Facts of Phren

“ology.

“ The first meeting was spent in arranging the Issues to be “ tried regarding the

frontal sinuses. “ At the second meeting the Issues were farther arranged, “ and Sir William Hamilton proceeded to prove his statements “ by examining a set of skulls in the University Natural History

Museum, said to have been sent from Paris by Dr Spurzheim. “ Mr Combe stated various objections to these skulls being re“ ferred to; and the arbiters agreed that satisfactory facts could “ not be deduced from them,-in the first place, Because the

age and sex could be determined only presumptively, and

even that but in a few; and, secondly, Because liberty could “not be obtained to lay the sinuses open to such an extent as appeared necessary for an accurate examination.

“ At the third meeting, after a desultory conversation on the “ best method of procuring accurate facts for deciding the points " at issue between Sir William Hamilton and Mr Combe, the “ arbiters proposed, that, instead of examining skulls whose his“tory was unknown, and which could not always be cut open “ to the requisite extent, the parties and umpires should attend " the pathological dissections at the Infirmary and Fever Hos

pital; by which means they hoped, that, in the course of a “ few months, a sufficient set of correct observations might be

procured, with all the necessary collateral circumstances.“ This proposition was agreed to; and, a few days afterwards " the first examination was made in presence of all the arbiters « at the Fever Hospital.

(Signed)-John Scott, M.D.--James SYME.—R. CHRIS

TIson.

“ Edinburgh, February 8, 1828.”

Extract from Phrenological Journal, No I. p. 57. “ We are able to state farther, that the skulls are really very “ interesting to the student of Phrenology. The question is of

66

66

* ten asked, On what principle did Drs Gall and Spurzheim

map out the skull, and assign different shapes to the different organs as appearing on the cranium? This collection presents

a most satisfactory answer to the inquiry. In cases of extreme “ development of any particular organ, the bone situate above “ it protrudes in the very form and dimensions delineated by “ the founders of the science; and these skulls were selected “ with the view of illustrating this point, and do illustrate it in “ the most decided manner. In one skull

, for example, Cau“ tiousness is the predominating organ, and the projection is seen “ to be exactly of the shape and size marked in the phrenologi“ cal busts. In another, Benevolence is the leading feature; in

a third, Veneration predominates, and so on; and in each the “ skull is seen presenting a distinct elevation of a form corre

sponding to that assigned to the external indication of the or

gan by Drs Gall and Spurzheim. The history of the indivi“ duals to whom the skulls belonged is not known, and the “ collection was sent as evidence merely of the fact, that eleva“ tions of the cranium, corresponding in figure and dimensions “ to those delineated on the phrenological busts, actually exist “ in nature, and that the lines of demarcation are not fanciful, “as is generally reported and believed."

LETTER FROM DR SPURZHEIM.

To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury. Sır,—You were so good as to insert, in your paper of Thursday, 31st January, an answer to Sir William Hamilton, which I intended to be final; but his letter published in your number of Monday, the 4th of February, makes it necessary for me to add some explanation to your readers, and I now trouble you and them for the last time. I depend on their good sense that they do not think me bound in duty to prove, that three propositions, which Sir William assumes to be mine, are inexact. He is the accusing party; hence let him prove his accusation, and, instead of drawing interpretations, let him copy from my printed works the passages in which I maintain the views attributed to me, and combated by him.

Sir William asserts, that he has taught me the views which I now maintain regarding the frontal sinus; but I am constrained to declare, that hitherto I have learned nothing from Sir William, who, by not bringing forth from my works the exact passages on which he founds his three supposed propositions, betrays that he did not understand Phrenology as I taught it in 1815 and 1816, and who, by not attending any of my demonstrations, shows that he is unwilling to become acquainted with the progress this science has made since that time. Your readers will easily conceive, that I could not learn my doctrine on the frontal sinus from him, seeing that all the specimens of the various modifications of it, through all ages, from new-born children to very old age, in the state of health and disease, shown by me in Edinburgh, were collected in Paris, whence I brought them to England, and seeing also that I taught the same doctrine in London, Bath, Bristol, Cambridge, and Hull, which I repeated in Edinburgh.

But Sir William, forgetting the old saying, nec sutor ultra crepidam, proposes to teach anatomical points unknown, I am sure, to all lecturers on anatomy in this city. The cerebellum, says he, has its full growth at three years, and the brain at seven years of age. The cerebellum, moreover, is absolutely larger in women than in men, and probably so in females than in males. To my knowledge Dr Gall never saw such things. I also confess, that, during the twenty-seven years that I have studied the structure, functions, and diseases of the brain, I have never been able to perceive facts to support the above-mentioned assertions of Sir William ; and M. Chausier, formerly professor of anatomy and

; physiology in the university of Paris, who paid particular attention to this subject, and who professedly wrote on it, notwithstanding of his great opportunities of examining brains both of children and adults, states, in his Exposition de l'Encephale, published in 1808, the contrary of what Sir William undertakes to demonstrate. I shall be glad to see him prove publicly his assertions as soon as he inds it convenient, even by the fifty skulls on which he fully relies. At the same time, I regret not being able to say, His gloriamur inimicitiis.

I am, Sir,
Your very

obedient servant,

G. SPURZHEIM. Edinburgh, 6th February, 1828.

II. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SIR WILLIAM HAMIL

TON AND DR SPURZHEIM, NOT PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED.

SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON TO DR SPURZHEIM.

SIR W. HAMILTON presents compliments to Dr Spurzheim, and requests permission to inquire, whether Dr Spurzheim consents to try the truth of Phrenology in the points at issue, by an induction of skulls, taken indifferently from the various collec