ideas cannot be called hackneyed which still run counter to the precepts of the many, and in direct opposition to the practices of most persons.

"It will be granted by all, that Moral Training ought to hold a prominent place in every system of education. But there is only one way in which it can be effectually conducted. All our faculties are stimulated when their proper objects are presented. If we wish, therefore, to excite the moral sentiments, we must not commit moral precepts to memory, for these exercise merely the intellect which retains them, and leave the heart untouched: we must furnish them with their corresponding objects. If we wish a boy to be benevolent, we must show him want which he may remove, misery which he may alleviate, beings whom he may love and treat with kindness and affection. Again, if we wish a boy to be honest and conscientious, we must repose trust in him, commit something to his care, require from him a strict account of his stewardship, and familiarise him to the pleasure which results from the consciousness. of the discharge of duty. Every other method but this is unnatural, and must therefore fail."

"The true philosopher, accordingly, is not the man who has the most profound and minute acquaintance with any single department of science, but he who has a general view of all, who can follow them in their combinations, and appreciate them as one great whole. It is doubtless possible for a man who does not possess this general knowledge, to accumulate facts in any science; but facts of themselves are dead and useless it is only when they are taken up by a higher order of minds, and classified, and generalised, and traced to their causes and results, that they become really useful, and merit the name of knowledge. This is true both of the progress of science and of the human mind. The most complete system of education, therefore, is that which conveys, not the fullest knowledge of one isolated science, but that which gives the most extensive of the whole field of science, and the various relations of all its parts."

survey

"Nor let it be said that talent will always, as in these cases, force its own way. Worldly distinction and success depend at least as much on a certain animal energy, as upon great intellectual power. The greatest talents are often unaccompanied by this energy, while it often co-exists with ignorance and folly. The poet has well said, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.' Talent does not always force its own way; and for one instance where it has risen superior to adverse circumstances, in a hundred it has passed away unexercised and unknown. And even in those cases where men of

great intellectual power have surmounted the obstacles of poverty and early want of instruction, how much greater, how much happier, how much more useful, might they not have been, had their road to knowledge been made a little less difficult and rugged, had a helping hand been judiciously extended to aid and guide them in the commencement of their career? Besides, this assertion, that talent will always force its own way, if true, proves too much. If talent will always force its way, it will do so among the higher as well as among the lower classes; what need, then, of education in any case? Admit the utility of Education in any single instance, and you must admit it in all; in other words, you must render Education universal.”

The last passage may be misunderstood by those who overlook the author's use of the word "talent," as if it were synonymous with "intellectual power." We are disposed to believe that talent (by which we mean the sum of mental capacity, both active and passive,) does not fail by any means so frequently as the author seems to think. A familiar instance will illustrate our meaning better than definitions; and this is afforded by the characters or capacities of Melancthon and Luther. In the former, the intellectual and moral power was greatly above that of Luther; yet Luther was more successful with the world, and effected more for the Reformation than Melancthon could have accomplished. The animal energy of Luther gave him a practical superiority, and thus constituted a part of his talents; but in situations where great intellect was required and great animal power not essential, there Melancthon shone to more advantage.

In two or three other points we are inclined to dissent from the lecturer's views. His definition of general education (page 5.), as comprehending "all the causes which tend in any way to form or modify the human mind," is faulty, inasmuch as it gives a signification to the term widely different from the sense in which it is ordinarily used. The application of old terms to new ideas is injudicious, as tending to produce ambiguity in all opinions or discussions connected with the subjects to which such terms relate. The word "epirrheology" has latterly been used in natural history, to signify the study of the influence of circumstances on living beings, and there seems no objection to letting the same term be extended to the influence of circumstances on rational beings. We also must intimate a great repugnance to the habit of pronouncing our own feeland ideas to be the correct interpretations or representations of the intentions of the Creator (page 9.). We see certain events take place in nature; and certain ideas and emotions are felt to be excited in ourselves by witnessing these

ings

natural occurrences. Does it therefore follow that the Author of nature must have had the same ideas and emotions when originally instituting this order of events? Our interpretations of natural occurrences proceed on this assumption, and hence we have the glaring absurdity of each of us attributing to the Creator some different purpose or intention, according to the peculiarities of our individual minds. Lastly, we take the opportunity of Mr. Hodgson's allusion to the punishment of death (page 22.), to declare our acquiescence in the right of society to inflict death on those of its members whose lives are incompatible with the safety or well-being of others, though we are convinced that in very few cases is it really necessary to resort to this. All particulars of the incident to which we allude are not in our recollection at this moment, but we believe it was Dr. Richardson who shot the insane man during the disastrous return from the overland journey in America: who could blame him for this homicide?

V. "Key of Phrenology. By Lieut. J. BUNNEY, K. O. S. M."— A pamphlet of 16 pages, without date or title-page.

OUR attention was called to this pamphlet, by a letter from Cambridge, subscribed "Philalethes," and inclosing a copy of the pamphlet. The writer states that Mr. Bunney had then been for some months in Cambridge, and that several members of the University had visited him for the purpose of being manipulated. Two other printed papers accompanied the pamphlet; one of them being a list of the names of the phrenological organs, used by Mr. Bunney in his reports of development; the other containing a set of laudatory notices of Mr. Bunney's phrenological skill, extracted from provincial newspapers, and evidently penned by persons very little acquainted with the science. These are preceded by an assertion that Mr. Bunney had been consulted by several thousand individuals, many of whom are of the highest rank and talent in the kingdom," and that he had "phrenologically examined, and given advice to, upwards of one thousand members of the University." We are sorry to learn this; and think it very little to the credit of "one thousand members of the University," and other individuals" of the highest rank and talent,” that they should seek this test of the value or accuracy of any science. And, although looking with cordiality upon all fellow-labourers in the same field with ourselves, provided they

keep within the boundaries of their individual talents and attainments, we must add, that, so far as our own observations go, the practice of selling reports of development and character has hitherto brought more discredit than benefit to Phrenology. Of Mr. Bunney individually we know nothing, nor can we recollect ever to have heard his name mentioned; so that we are wholly unable to speak of his personal merits as a phrenologist, and can give no direct reply to the observation of our correspondent, that, "having, on his own authority, I believe, so considerably increased the number of organs, it becomes a matter of serious consideration whether or no he is to be countenanced by the Editors of the Phrenological Journal." Every one has an undoubted right to propound his own views in science; and if the public should err, through receiving these views without the warranty of evidence or established scientific reputation in the propounder, time will set them right.

We thank our friendly correspondent, however, for sending Mr. Bunney's published work, since we have thus had the opportunity of forming a judgment of its value,—or, we regret to say, its want of value. It has been our lot to read some very poor works put forth as Guides or Keys to Phrenology, and the pamphlet now before us is amongst the worst. As a literary production, it is scarcely deserving of criticism; and as a treatise on science or philosophy, it has still humbler claims to notice. Our readers will form their own estimate of the work, on seeing the two examples here given in illustration of the author's mode of describing the phrenological organs and faculties.

"No. 1. AMATIVENESS-LOVE- THE DESIRE OF

MARRIAGE.

"This organization is the most mysterious of human nature, and is a type of the spiritual marriage of time with eternity, or the body and the mind. (See Lectures on Self-knowledge.)

"USES.

This organ is to increase domestic virtue, and perfect spiritual love, by physical agency, to the glory of the heavenly Creator.

"ABUSES. Animal sensuality, worshipping the creatures instead of the Creator; selfish love, or second love, forsaking first love to God by means of fleshly lust."

"21. LOCALITY.

"USES. Geographical discoveries; memory of place and situation of objects, and their local agreement with circumstances and events; it also gives love of change, and travelling about to see other countries; restlessness, love of hunting, sports, and all things connected with bodily exercise. It is useful to the surveyor and landscape painter.

"ABUSES. Restlessness, love of change and travel; it influences to physical enjoyment and the neglect of study, and individual knowledge of things. This organ is the greatest enemy to the human mind, as it too often influences the judgment to materialism or infidelity, and crime; it is the intellectual organ of the body."

In addition to such gratuitous non-representations of Phrenology as are contained in the preceding descriptions, the author of the pamphlet has introduced into his list organs or faculties of Space, Temperance, Sophistry, and Prophecy. Not a single fact being adduced in confirmation of the existence of such organs, it would be superfluous on our part to say more about them, unless that "Space" may be intended as a synonym of Vimont's organ of " Geometrical Sense," although the description of it is ridiculous. We have no right to censure Mr. Bunney for publishing ideas which he probably fancies to be correct and very profound; but phrenologists are entitled to complain that he should give the name of Phrenology to descriptions and representations which no intelligent phrenologist could countenance. Who can be surprised that our Universities should be slow to receive a science brought to their gates under such a form as this Key of Phrenology?

VI. The Knowledge Qualification:- A Plan for the reciprocal Extension of Education and the Franchise. By JAMES ADAM, Editor of the Aberdeen Herald. Edinburgh: W. Tait. 1837. 8vo. pp. 23.

THE Phrenological Journal will abstain from interference in questions of party politics; but the philosophy of politics is clearly within the scope of a Journal devoted to mental science; as having, for its proper object, the knowledge and guidance of the common mind of the nation. The pamphlet before us is an important contribution to the science of politics, on account of the vast change its author proposes to make in the qualifications of parliamentary electors, jurymen, members of civic boards, magistrates, and other persons exercising public offices, where knowledge and the capacity of sound judgment are required (at present assumed) in the office-bearers. In order to insure this degree of intelligence in electors and the elected, Mr. Adam would either substitute tests of knowledge, in place of pecuniary qualifications, or else unite the former with the latter. To every reflecting moralist, we should presume, the plan of Mr. Adam must appear to be theoretically the best; but that it will become a practical one, we have not the slightest hope. A moment's thought on the immense mass of wealthy ignorance, which would be disqualified by any test of adequate knowledge for the fulfilment of public duties, must convince readers that the suggestions of Mr. Adam will not get a full