Their method of giving an estimate of the phrenological development, is by a series of four figures, taking 1 as the lowest, and 4 as the highest development; but as they state many of their estimates to half-a-degree (as 1 or 2), they virtually have the scale in seven degrees; and to avoid the fraction, we shall so state it by doubling the figures. Our lowest figure will thus be 2, and our highest 8.

VII. Further Explanations of the Rev. Mr. Bedford's Case.

WE lament to say that this case was very insufficiently reported in our last Number, which led us to make some remarks upon it, not authorised by the facts of the case, when fully detailed. (See page 296.) As Mr. Bedford spoke only of non-perception of colours, and of failure of vision in the right eye, we could have no reason to conclude, that the power of vision was almost lost in both eyes, and not for colours only. As we now understand the case, Mr. Bedford's sight is almost lost in both eyes; the right eye having failed some years before the left. Concomitant with this imperfection in the sense of sight, external depressions are now observed in the forehead, corresponding to the situation of the phrenological organs of Colour; the depression on the right eyebrow being greater

than that on the left. From these circumstances, it seems not very improbable that the depressions have been a consequence of the loss of sight; but whether the greater depression over the right eye is to be accounted for by the longer duration of its blindness, is at best very doubtful. The case is worthy of notice, as suggesting the usefulness of observing the progress of others; but it proves nothing in itself.

We take advantage of the opportunity thus afforded, for again calling the attention of phrenologists to the importance — the absolute necessity of precision and completeness in their reports of cases or facts; and of also urging them to avoid the injudicious method of sending private letters for publication, or even of writing any scientific communications whatever in the form of letters. We mentioned, on the cover of our second number, that it was the worst form for publication; and, we may here add, that common as "letters" are, scarcely one out of three communications sent as "letters to the editor," either in this or any other journal known to us, is creditable to the writer. They are sometimes loosely worded, frequently incomplete, commonly adapted only to the person to whom they are addressed, and consequently unfit for publication. We may illustrate this want of adaptation by the case alluded to; Mr. Bedford wrote a private letter to Mr. Combe, who had seen him, and was acquainted with circumstances which it was therefore unnecessary to state in the letter. Thus, taken by itself, as intelligence conveyed to Mr. Combe alone, the letter was perfectly accurate and complete. But when that letter was sent to one unacquainted with Mr. Bedford, and published to be read by hundreds who were also unacquainted with him, it became not only an insufficient report of a case, but, worse than that, it was one very much calculated to mislead. The rule should be, for every one who sends an article to the press, to address himself at once to the public, unless there be special reasons for a different proceeding, as in the publication of an actual correspondence between individuals.

VIII. Facts in contradiction to Mr. Hytch's Views on the Function of the Organ marked " ?”

66

AFTER reading the suggestions of Mr. Hytch, in our last Number, Mr. Combe stated to us the following cases in direct contradiction to the views of Mr. Hytch; and as facts are

always the best and briefest arguments, in reference to the functions of cerebral parts, we gladly make an extract from that part of Mr. Combe's letter: "The reverence for antiquities and the love of the past' have already been referred, on good grounds, to Veneration, and Mr. Hytch does not mention the state of that organ in his cases. (See page 284. of last Number.) Sir Walter Scott had Veneration enormously large, and probably Mr. Joseph Hume may have it small. In Bath, I met Dr. who has large Veneration, and the organ?' large, with deficient Cautiousness, and moderate Ideality. He told me that he has little pleasure in the beautiful, but is entranced by the sublime. He is very strongly religious, but I heard nothing of any distinguishing love of the past.' Yesterday I met Dr. P., in whom Ideality is rather small, the organ '?' large, and Cautiousness not so large. He said that he was deeply affected by the sublime, and not strongly by the beautiful. Veneration was well developed, and he did not give any indications, in a long conversation, of a mind that dwelt on the past, but the reverse. In my own head, the organ '?' is larger than Ideality, and Veneration is moderate. When a boy I used to brave storm and maternal reproof, to enjoy the tumbling of a waterfall in a flood, and still thrill to the soles of my feet when the sublime is presented. I am not so strongly moved by the beautiful, and no man had ever fewer pleasures in dwelling on the past, than I have."

We know another very striking case in accordance with those mentioned by Mr. Combe. A gentleman in whom there is quite a prominence between Cautiousness and Ideality, (but slightly more forward than the "?" is placed on the busts,) delights in what is wild, solemn, vast, dreary, and lonely. He says that moors, mountains, cataracts, floods and forests, if on a scale of vastness, the sea in a storm, and the roll of the thunder in the solitude of night, are sights and sounds of thrilling enjoyment. Ideality and Veneration are about average amongst his organs; Cautiousness and Destructiveness are largely developed. He is prone to despise men for excessive attachment to the past; the "wisdom of our ancestors' " and the "good old times" are constant expressions with him, but always used ironically in scorn or ridicule of the reverence for the past. He is a collector of specimens in natural history: otherwise not particularly acquisitive.

III. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I. A Treatise on the Nature, Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment of Insanity; with Practical Observations on Lunatic Asylums; and a Description of the Pauper Lunatic Asylum for the County of Middlesex, at Hanwell, with a detailed Account of its Management. By Sir W. C. ELLIS, M.D., Resident Medical Superintendent, and formerly of the Asylum at Wakefield. London: S. Holdsworth. 1838. 8vo. pp. viii. 344.

THIS long title sufficiently explains the object of Sir W. Ellis's work. The author's experience has been ample; both in the number of patients coming under his care, and in the length of time during which his attention has been devoted to the actual management of the insane; and the volume before us includes reports of a great variety of cases illustrative of the different forms of insanity, its causes, and the proper remedial measures, both physical and moral. The whole volume, indeed, excepting the descriptions of Asylums and suggestions for their improvement, may be called a collection of cases, with the practical inferences drawn from them by the author. It is consequently rather difficult to convey any clear ideas of the contents of the work, in the compass of a notice adapted to our limited space; and since the remedial treatment of the insane, as well as the organic causes of insanity, are subjects better adapted to a medical journal, we shall say little of them here.

The author decides, "that Insanity, in all its various forms and modifications, is in reality a disease of the brain and nervous system;" and we shall fully concur with him in this opinion, if we may be allowed to change the mode of expressing it: we should not speak of insanity as a disease of the brain, but as a consequence and symptom of some disease in the brain. He also says, "in carefully looking over the post mortem reports of those whose cerebral organization I have examined, I find that in one hundred and fifty-four male patients one hundred and forty-five had disease very strongly marked, either in the brain or the membranes. Of the nine remaining, two were idiots from birth; one died of dysentery, another of epilepsy; the other five cases had not been insane more than a few months, and died of other diseases. Of the females, sixty-seven were examined; and sixty-two found with disease in the brain or membranes: in the other five no disease

was to be discovered. Two of these were idiots from birth, and, with one exception, the others were recent cases." (Page 20.) It thus appears that in two hundred and seven out of two hundred and twenty-one cases, there was visible disease of brain. And out of the other fourteen cases, four (being congenital idiots, a class in whom there is almost always either small size or defective structure of brain, without actual disease) may be set aside; thus leaving only ten cases, or less than five per cent., in which disease of brain was not actually detected. This is a very small proportion, if we reflect how frequently disorders of other functions exist, where dissection fails to show organic lesions. It is a pity that the author did not state in detail the symptoms and supposed origin of derangement in those ten cases of apparent exception. Medical reporters are too prone to pass over exceptions, unmindful that a single apparent exception may be of more value in fixing the limits of a rule, than are a hundred cases of direct confirmation.

Dr. Andrew Combe has particularly enforced the importance of departures from the usual modes of feeling and acting, proper to the patient, as tests of insanity; and we are glad to find Sir W. Ellis insisting upon the same thing. He writes, "But before we proceed, I would again urge the necessity and importance of remembering, that, to constitute insanity, there must be an alteration. For a man of a weak intellect, but perfectly capable of managing his affairs, may be taken by interested relatives to a medical man; who, from having fixed in his own mind some vague or arbitrary standard of sanity, to which the person examined does not come up, will, without any enquiry as to his previous state, or upon a hasty examination, give, uninfluenced by improper motives, but simply from ignorance or carelessness, a certificate of his insanity. Again, a perfectly sane man, of ordinary, or even more than ordinary, powers of mind, may, from some unaccountable eccentricities, which not unfrequently accompany genius, be put into confinement solely from the medical person not having enquired into his previous habits." (Page 31.)

The author discusses hereditary predisposition, amongst the causes of insanity, and states that "out of 1380 patients, there have been 214 whose parents or relatives we have ascertained to have been previously insane. In 125 of these cases, no other cause could be assigned for the disease coming on than that of its being hereditary." Taking into account the frequent reluctance to admitting a family predisposition to insanity, and also the little knowledge many paupers possess regarding their predecessors and relatives, one in seven is a large proportion of