be otherwise, until we can use definite terms for describing the forms of head, in lieu of stating only the (presumed) size of the organs, according to the terms of the received scale. A priori, we should say that an individual, who is well endowed with the organs of Form, Size, and Locality, might reduce the forms of heads to some general standard, or to a few standard shapes, and invent appropriate terms for expressing the degrees of divergence from the standard. Let it not be supposed impossible because heads appear to be infinitely varied in their proportions. Nature works by definite rules, not capriciously. The clouds of the atmosphere, the leaves of plants, the aggregations of mineral particles, seem to be infinitely varied, in the eyes of the superficial observer; yet have they been reduced to classification, and are now readily and correctly described by appropriate terms. At all events, it is surely possible to improve upon the present mode of reporting development; and we earnestly recommend this attempt to the attention of phrenologists organically adapted to it.* When facts are reported for other purposes than that of showing the functions of organs, the object especially in view will determine the points to which particular attention should be given. One general rule, however, may be laid down; namely, not to omit anything that may be found useful or explanatory hereafter. Many of the pathological cases which have been cited by medical writers, as being adverse to Phrenology, derive their apparent counterforce from being incompletely reported. Had they been correctly and fully reported, they would now be so many evidences in support. That the cases of the older medical writers should have such defect, is not to be wondered at; but for such a garbled or bungled report, as that of the case of Mr. N., (in the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal,) to appear in the year 1836, is remarkable enough. The exposure of that misreport (made in Number 50. of this Journal, and again mentioned in Number 53.) affords a good illustration of the necessity of stating all particulars, if we do not wish to mislead and deceive. True it is, that we may chance to record several trifling or accessory matters, of no real moment, in our attempts to give full details; but for the purposes of science it is far better to be too full than too meagre in description; so that in doubtful cases we can take care to keep on the right side, by being sufficiently explicit. Besides, if persons will not use more words than are necessary to convey their meaning, a great many details may be contained in a

See the case of Perrie, in this Number, for some further observations on taking developments.

small compass of printed pages. Simplicity and precision, not fine writing, should be esteemed a first excellence in the literature of science, and especially so in the record of its facts. [To be continued.]

II. The Atrocities in New South Wales, and Supineness of the British Government to the Means of Prevention.

THE readers of the Phrenological Journal are aware, that early in the year 1836, Sir George Stewart Mackenzie addressed a representation to Lord Glenelg, as Secretary for the Colonies, stating that the lives and property of the settlers in N. S. Wales, were seriously endangered by the transportation of convicts of ferocious and desperate character, who were assigned as servants to the settlers, along with others of better or more manageable dispositions. It was the suggestion of Sir George, that the worst and most dangerous convicts ought to be kept in confinement at home, and that there ought to be an officer qualified to investigate the characters of convicts and to classify them on phrenological principles. Sir George further proposed that an authorised trial of the skill of competent phrenologists should take place, in order to ascertain the possibility of distinguishing the most dangerous criminals from others more capable of management. The value of Sir George Mackenzie's suggestions must be too apparent to require any forcing upon the attention of phrenologists. The manner in which the proposed trial should have been conducted, was explained on page 389 of our last volume. His Lordship declined to take any measures for effecting an object so important to the cause of humanity, and likely to prove so beneficial to the settlers and inhabitants of one of our principal colonies. His alleged reasons for refusal were two; first, the want of funds, which were declared by Sir George Mackenzie not to be required, because phrenologists themselves would provide the necessary sum out of their own purses; secondly, his Lordship's own want of faith in phrenological science, which could be no sufficient reason for neglect of a public duty; particularly since his Lordship did not state that he knew anything whatever about Phrenology, or of the evidence by which it is supported. But in order to remove even the shadow of an excuse thus thrown over the refusal of the noble Secretary, Sir George Mackenzie procured certificates from many persons of acknowledged ability and

good character, who had investigated the doctrines and evidences of Phrenology; most of whom stated in their certificates, that it was possible to distinguish desperate and dangerous men from others, by the forms of their heads; while the rest, who were not so far advanced in their practical acquaintance with the science, declared their conviction that the experiment ought to be tried. His Lordship then said that he considered the matter to come within the duties of the Secretary for the Home Department; and the certificates were accordingly presented to Lord John Russell, who promised to attend to the subject as soon as he could find an opportunity of doing so. Nearly two years haye elapsed, and we have not learned that any further notice has been taken by Lord John Russell.

The Certificates were afterwards published, along with other Testimonials to the truth and practical value of Phrenology, presented to Mr. Combe on the occasion of offering himself as a Candidate for the Chair of Logic in the University of Edinburgh. They were also reprinted in the 4th Edition of Mr. Combe's System of Phrenology. The certificates amounted to forty-five, and were signed by eighty gentlemen. Amongst these were twenty-seven physicians, several of them professors in our Universities; twenty-four surgeons; ten barristers or gentlemen otherwise connected with the administration of the law; and four divines. The rest were members of Parliament, persons of independent property, editors of periodicals of established repute, or authors of approved works.

When so many persons of respectable station in society, of acknowledged ability, and competent to give an opinion on the question from actual investigation, thus bore testimony to the practicability and usefulness of this application of Phrenology, we conceive that it was the duty of a responsible government to allow the proposed trial of skill to be made. If unsuccessful, there was an end of the matter, and the pretensions of phrenologists would have been at an end also; but if successful, there was then the certainty of great advantage, not only to our convict colonies, but also to all persons concerned in the custody and management of criminals. Our Government, however, refuses even to allow the experimental test; that is, Lord John Russell makes a promise, and then takes no further notice of the matter. Meantime, the atrocities of the transported convicts continue; the dangerous characters are still intermingled amongst the others, and incite them to the commission of outrages horrible to every one endowed with the ordinary feelings of humanity. As phrenologists, we must assume (and we assume this, because we speak on the strength of undeniable facts,) that the occurrence of such outrages

might be much diminished, if not wholly prevented; and consequently, we must regard those to whom the power of prevention is given, but who refuse to exert that power, as morally guilty of conniving at the most deadly crimes. Lord John Russell would doubtless hold it an aspersion of his character, should any one publicly accuse him of being an abettor of the crime of murder, or even regardless of it in others; and, of course, we do not suppose that he has the slightest wish or intention of being so, in any the most indirect manner. But he is voluntarily incurring no slight chance of being thus characterised hereafter, because where the means of preventing such crimes have been offered to any individual in his official capacity, and he has neglected to give those means a fair trial, the morality of his conduct will be tested in history by the ultimate results. The day is now not very distant, when such applications of Phrenology will be fairly made in the management of criminals; and the present neglect will then be painted in its true colours by historians, even by some of those who are now living.

Sir George Mackenzie was induced to make his representation to the Secretaries of State, in consequence of barbarous atrocities perpetrated by convicts on the estate of his son in N. S. Wales. We have again brought forward the subject, after reading the account of the murders by convicts, recorded in the Sydney Herald of the 7th of August last, and which were copied into the Courier of November 30. The account is rather too long to be transferred to our pages, so that we shall give only an abstract of the leading particulars. In May last, nine convicts absconded from the service of settlers to whom they had been assigned, taking with them the horse of one of their masters, and some muskets. They travelled together two days; and during the night of the second day, three of them murdered the rest while asleep, by beating out the brains of four of them with a tomahawk, and shooting the other two. They afterwards burnt the bodies. Next day, the three-Dignum, Commerford, and one who is called the Shoemaker'. travelled together, and a dispute arose between Dignum and the Shoemaker about the direction of their road. In the night Dignum beat out the brains of the sleeping Shoemaker. They were arrested a fortnight afterwards, but again escaped from custody, and were not retaken until after they had committed several robberies of houses, and Dignum had attempted to shoot Commerford, who only escaped through the pistol missing fire. According to the testimony of Commerford, Dignum killed five out of their six sleeping companions with his own hand; and the Shoemaker, the murderer of the sixth man, was also

killed by Dignum, who subsequently attempted to murder Commerford. Assuming it possible and, we repeat, phrenologists know that in most-instances it is possible to ascertain the ferocious disposition of a wretch like Dignum, by examination of his head, such a criminal might be kept under sufficient restraint, either at home or in N. S. Wales, instead of being assigned as a servant to any settler. If this had been done in the case of Dignum, these horrid butcheries and subsequent robberies might have been prevented, and imminent danger to others would have been avoided; for, the man who could thus ruthlessly murder his sleeping comrades would not hesitate to murder his master or any other person.

In all probability this page will never meet the eyes of our noble Secretaries of State, as we are not aware that they take any interest in moral science; but we ask them, whether they can conscientiously pronounce themselves wholly free from blame, in refusing to allow a fair experiment for ascertaining the possibility of distinguishing such dangerous men by phrenological indications, and thus separating them from others who are to be assigned as servants to our colonists?

III. Remarks on Mr. E. J. Hytch's Communication on the Improvement of Phrenological Busts. In a Letter to the Editor, from Mr. GEORGE COMBE.

EDINBURGH, 18th December, 1837.

SIR, While I agree with Mr. Hytch in lamenting the multitude of pretended phrenological busts, all differing from each other and from nature, which may be "purchased at the various image shops of London," I cannot avoid remarking that he might have brought the subject before the public in a manner less likely to injure the cause of Phrenology than that which he has adopted. He remarks that "if the bust is purchased of Mr. Deville, there is some probability that it will be correct, as far as any of those published can deserve that appellation," but he does not enter into any specification of the merits or demerits of Mr. D.'s bust. Again, he takes no notice of the existence of the Edinburgh Bust, which is mentioned in the Phrenological Journal, Vol. VI. p. 178., and also in my System of Phrenology, 4th edition p. 121., as having been published in an improved form on 1st October 1824, and re-issued, with additional corrections, on 1st April 1829. To overlook the only two busts that can be traced to any authentic source,