"tain offices, will produce a greater degree of activity in them: we "see this every day. We must also consider the mutual influence "of the powers; one power is excited by another, and one part pre"vented from performing its office by injury done to another. "Every one who practises Phrenology is too much inclined to measure the different degrees of activity by the size alone, and I, "therefore, never forget to insist so much on its accuracy in my lec"tures; hence, I hope you will not impute to me errors committed " in this way."

The essayist referred to in the correspondence, we are informed, "measured, with the callipers, the breadth over Destructiveness, from the highest part of the skull to its opposite on the base, which, says he, I find in my specimen to be a little before the foramen magnum; and for the length I inserted a scale through the foramen magnum to the most anterior part of the skull, which I found generally to be the crebriform plate of the ethmoid bone. Thus I had the length, breadth, and depth of the brain."

The difficulty which appears to have been experienced in this case may be removed by a brief explanation. Every organ, ceteris paribus, acts with a degree of energy proportioned to its size; to ascertain the practical effect of Destructiveness, therefore, in any individual, the size of that organ in relation to the other organs in his brain must be determined. Many persons inquire about a standard of size for each organ, by means of which they may predicate its manifestations without attending to the influence of the other organs with which it is combined; but the principle, that every organ acts with a degree of energy proportioned to its size, precludes the possibility of such a standard existing; for example, suppose that in each of two men Destructiveness is equal to 9, but that in one of them Benevolence, Cautiousness, and Reflection, are equal to 12, and in the other only to 6, it is obvious, that if the latter organs as well as the former act with energy proportioned to their size, the manifestations of Destructiveness in the first individual will be subordinate to those of the moral and intellectual faculties, while, on the same principle, they will be predominant in the second. In

comparative Phrenology again, the seat and functions of each organ must be ascertained in every species of animal, by comparing the manifestations of its powers with the size of particular parts of its brain, as is done in the case of man: With a view to determine the disposition of each individual animal, the relative size of its different organs ought to be compared. The brain differs in form and the arrangement of its parts in every species; and because in man, and in the dog, and carnivorous animals in general, Destructiveness is discovered by observation to lie above the meatus auditorius, it does not follow that the portion of brain lying above the meatus in animals of a different species, which are not carnivorous, must have the same functions. To discover the propensities connected with different parts of the brain, in the sheep for example, a series of observations on it must be instituted After the functions of the different cerebral parts are thus discovered in each species, comparisons between the species may be instituted, and sound conclusions deduced, but not before.

Dr Spurzheim remarks, that "every one who practises Phrenology is too much inclined to measure the different degrees of activity by the size alone:" this is a serious error. In this Journal, vol. I. p. 297, and in Mr Combe's Elements and System of Phrenology, the distinction between power and activity of mind is explained, and the doctrine laid down, that size in the organs is an index of power alone. Activity is not in proportion to size, and no external sign of it is known. The brain may be moderate in size, but if very active, the mental faculties may be highly fertile and vivacious. These qualities are frequently mistaken for power, although they are very different Thomas Moore's brain is rather below than above an average size, but its activity is great; and although no one can dispute that he is distinguished for genius of a high order, depending on activity, and a particular combination of organs, yet, in comparing his productions with those of Shakspeare and Milton, in whom great

activity and great size appear to have been combined, it is impossible not to feel his lightness as very distinguishable from their strength and depth.

ARTICLE VIII.

ON THE PHRENOLOGICAL CAUSES OF THE DIFFERENT DEGREES OF LIBERTY ENJOYED BY DIFFERENT NATIONS.

PART II.

Causes of the INDEPENDENCE as distinguished from the LIBERTY of Nations.

In the former part of this essay I endeavoured to state and to illustrate the general principle, that nations are free, or, at least, susceptible of freedom, only as they possess the requisite endowment of the sentiments and the intellect, and that in every case free institutions are the effects, and not the causes of liberty.

Without farther recapitulation I proceed to lay down the following proposition,-That no nation which has long been enslaved can suddenly become free, and that such a phenomenon is without example in the history of the world. In illustrating this proposition it is necessary carefully to separate two things which, though essentially different, have often been confounded, I mean the independence, or freedom from a foreign yoke or influence, as contradistinguished from the li berty of a nation. From not attending to this distinction, nations have been supposed to become free when they have only become independent; and on this account it seems necessary that we should endeavour to investigate the phrenological causes which produce the one and the other.

The first requisite then, which would appear indispensable to produce independence, is, a certain general cerebral size;

without a considerable size in the brain, a nation can never maintain its independence, but, ceteris paribus, must inevitably fall before a nation more highly endowed in this respect. Hence, though the relative proportion of the organs in the British and Hindoo head had been similar, and only the size been different, it is clear, on phrenological principles, that the Hindoos, like the house of Saul, would have waxed weaker and weaker, while the British, like the house of David, would have waxed stronger and stronger. The superiority of the British in the organs of sentiment and intellect has no doubt accelerated the subjection of the Hindoos; but though their superiority had been in size alone, the result would in the end have been the same; and still we might have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of 40,000 Europeans maintaining an easy and a peaceable sway over 100,000,000 of Asiatics. It is evident, however, that relative, not absolute size is here supposed. The same Hindoos, when opposed to a people not better endowed in this respect than themselves, might have asserted that independence which they were unable to maintain against the superior cerebral size of the British. Relative size then being supposed, we have next to inquire into the combination of the primitive faculties which would give the desire to possess, and the capacity to maintain independence.

Self-esteem is, I apprehend, the chief element in the combination which inspires the love of independence; it is one of those faculties which cannot brook the lordly sway of a master; it produces the love of power, and therefore it cannot endure power in another when directed against itself; it naturally hates control, and prompts to resistance. Self-esteem, however, only gives the desire; but to the actual acquisition and possession of independence, Combativeness, Destructiveness, Firmness, and a good endowment of the knowing faculties, seem to be necessary; these faculties being, so to speak, the instruments which Self-esteem employs to obtain its object. Without Combativeness, Destructiveness, and an

adequate endowment of Firmness, a nation will be timid, fearful, and irresolute; they will be deficient in that courage and determination which these faculties inspire, and without which they will oppose a feeble resistance to an invading enemy. Individuality and the other knowing faculties are requisite for giving that power of observation and that capacity for arrangement, which are necessary in military operations, without some proficiency in which a nation would hold its independence by a very slender tenure.

But the combination we have now been considering is not, I apprehend, the only one which will produce independence; at least it is susceptible of modification; so that a nation with Self-esteem comparatively moderate, but with Love of Approbation decidedly large, will also seek independence. This faculty is of the same engrossing character as Self-esteem; and as two proud men, so two vain men, mutually repel each other like similar poles of a magnet. This element of opposition, which is common to both faculties, seems to be the principle which in both produces the desire of independence, and the hatred of every rival. Love of Approbation is but another name for ambition, and the first object of an ambitious people is to be independent of all others, and to exalt the glory of their own country beyond that of every other. To a people so constituted, nothing can be so galling as national servitude. To be obliged to swell the ranks of the armies of their masters, and to be denied all share in the glory which results from victories and conquests, while that glory is usurped by another, is to rob them of that which Love of Approbation prizes above life itself, and must stimulate them to make every effort to throw off the yoke which thus galls and afflicts them. In a word, let us only imagine the feelings of the French, if their beloved France were converted into a province of the British empire.

In treating of the independence as opposed to the liberty of nations, I must at present assume, that while a full endowment of the sentiments and intellect is necessary to the