The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-21 00:00:00

GERM.4N PAPERS.

Flow TUE FRONTIERS OF WALLACHIA, MARCH 22.
In both the principalities the exactions to which the inhabitants
are exposed, become more and more oppressive, and the Bojara are
placed fn a state of great embarrassment, by the extraordinary de.
mend lately addressed by the Sultan to the llospodars, requiring
14011.000 piastre! for the ..approschirg campaign. At Bucharest
the Bojars assembled in Divan were just on the point of acceding
to this new tax. which arbitrary power had imposed on them, when
3lichaitza Philipesco. one of the moat zealous patriots, rose and
reminded his timid colleagues that they called themselves the fathers
pf the people, and its such ought Ellen, according to the ancient laws,
to endeavour to ray the debts which the country contracted during
the troubles, The great Worlick Bala:rum, moved by similar
feelings, supported his proposal, on which several Bois" joined
them to assert the ancient rights of the Daciat, people. Hereupon
a Committee wa• appointed to examine into the receipts and ripen.
diture of the butt year; and. according to what is at present known,
tbi■ inquiry is likely to bring very strange things to light. People
ale however anxiods to learn how the Porte will take these
proceedings.

• . . PHRENOLOGY.
On Saturdayevenlng last Dr. delivered hie Fifteenth
Lecture, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, on the Science of
Phrenology. On commencing it he nbserred, that the study of the
brain involved thee of all human knowledge. Many had found it
convenient, for lack of tegument, to assert that Phrenology was
dangerous ; if the stielice war not founded in truth there could be
no danger, for it would not stand—if it was founded iii truth, it
could not be dangerous. Danger could not result from the promul-
gation of natural truth. Examp:es, indeed, might be found in
history, where the annunciat on of new truths was considered as
dangerous, and, as such. had beet, endeavoured to be repressed,—
The case of Copernicus was an instsree in point ; these, however,
were not examples for imitation, but fur avoidance. For his part,
he certainly did not think that there was any modern doctrine so
dangerous as that of Phrenology. But to Whom was it dangerous 7
Could truth he dangerous to mankind at large ? Impossible.!
fur that would be to accuse the Divine Being }Who was the author
of truth. Phrenology was demonises only to the; systems of those
metaphysical philosophers which had hitherto been considered es
infallible. Among the objections to it, it was said to lead to Ma-
terialism and Fatalism. Iffiese assertions were easily made, but
they proceeded onle from those whose knowledge of the wiener did
not warrant their in pmnneneing • judgment on the subject; they
had taken only a superficial v.ew or the Phrenological System. The
Anti-Phrenologist required the whole of the brain, weighing about
three pounds. for the development of each particular pewee ;
whereas the Phrenologist mairtained mast a small portion only was
necessary. The Phrenological System did not teach that the brain
was the mind, but merely that it was necessary to the manifests.
tion of the mind. The other objection was, that it led to Fatalism.
What was meant by this term ? Did it mean that the Creator had
dictated laws which must be obeyed ? If merely this was meant,
then certainly Phrenology did teach Fatalism. If aught else was
meant, the charge was unfoureled. He would not go so far as
some, who had affirmed the existence of innate ideas and predestined
actions which were given and not to be controlled ; but lie would
maintain, that man was submitted to the operation of immutable
laws. These laws of nature were, he was sorry to remark, too
much overlooked in the study of man, and from hence resulted the
prevailing errors and prejudices. The body was submitted to laws
which, it was well known, it was highly dangerous to invade...-
The whole of nature was subjected to laws, some, perhaps, incom-
prehensible, but which must nevertheless be obeyed. Man was
in no respect master of his fate. Did it depend on man's will "to
be, or not to be?" Did it depend upon man to determine whether
he should be the eldest or the youngest born ? Was it in his power
to decide whether he would belong to a family that had hereditary
diseases or not ? Snore were born deprived of one or more settees;
was their state a consecrence of their will, or were they what they
were ia spite of their will ? Phrenology taught that some men had
naturally greater pewee of mind than others, in the same manner
that some were born stronger in body than others. This was all
the Fatalism that the Phrenological System taught. Several con-
ditions, he granted, were necessary to produce these differences.—
One condition was, the disposition of the brain, according to which
certain powers were strong or week; another was, that external
circumstances should excite these powers to great activity. As to
the connection between Predestination and Phrenology, he denied
it absolutely. There was no relation between the subjects. The
one was a theological doctrine—the other a scientific investigation.
The only reason why the reverse had been maintained was, that the
question had been discussed gravely by those who ought to have
known better than to have listened to if. The Professor then came
to the consideration of how far the passions could be controlled._
Let them look to animals. It was mud to punish a dog for
being hungry, but • hungry dog would sometimes prefer re-
maining so, risen receive blows which he was aware would follow
the seizure of meat. There were numerous other examples be-
fore their eyes terry day, in which the natural passions implseted
in animals were effectually repressed. They often stir cats, mice,
and birds confined togetirer in one cage. If the passions could be
successfully opposed in animals they could also in man. There
was no person who could say that he had not, at sonic dote,
counterneted some one or other of big passions. In short, because
the powers existed, it did not follow that it was obligatory to use
them. Phrenology taught, therefore, the free condition of man.
He did not, like asWe fancifulmperulaiors, teeohehat man had un-
bounded libert ,for he wee subjected to the laws of cause and
efflct. But although he had not unbounded liberty, yet to a cer-
tain extent he had it ; for if brute animals had a choice in the
counterartion of their passim*, surely man, endowed as he was
with such superiority of intellect, also had the same power. The
first condition necessary to the existence of ftce-will was the pos-
-1 session of different powers. If a being had tut one power there was
no choice. Thus, a stone had only the power of fallin , and there-
fore had no choice or free will. An animal possessed only of one
power could only exercise that power. Infants were juetly held not
to be guilty if they did any thing that was wrong. Idiots, in the
same manner, might steal, and yet have no moral guilt imputed
to them, because they had not understanding to distinguish right
from along, and thereby to guide their choice. In common life a
man who had received a good educteion was more blamed for any
had action he might commit than a leas informed man. The next
print on which the Professor remarked was the influence of the
understanding on the powers. The inclinations that were planted
in our nature we could not eradicate, 1,. t it depended upon our-
selves to prevent their Influence on our actions, since the under-
standing governed our voluntary motions. Ile had explained, in
his previous lectures how, with certain powers, animals acted in a
certain manner. In proportion to the number of powers they pos-
sessed, they were chic to control their actions. Man, having more
news than any animal, had therefore greater eapability to con-
trol his passions. The Professor then arrived at what lie tonsi-
-1 deed the most difficult point in the Phrenological System. In
mankind they could talk of morality, but not so amongenimals.
The number of powers strictly primitive, they had seen, amounted
to 3e ; aria every system of laws that did not take the whole of them
into consideration would not be permanent; for no legislation could
annihilate tine of those powers. If laws were made to take away
the faculties of sight or hearing, those senses would not the less
exist. The laws of nature were the same in one country as in
another : what was poison in England would not be alimentary in
America. It was less agreeable, doubtless, to submit to the
laws of nature than to fellow bur own caprices. He would
take moderation in eating and drinking as an example : but
every infringement of these laws would bring with it its own
punishment. Some powers were naturally more active than
others. Let them turn their eyes to the vegetable kingdom.
The plant was confined to one spot, received certain nou.
rishment, and converted it into its own nature, and had no
choice. Animals had the faculty of locomotion, and in addition,
in consequence, the sense of taste, by which they could discrimi-
nate their food. Man had many properties in common with ant-
male, as respiration, digestion, kr. : but man had, besides these,
powers proper to himself. These tierwerrere glees to control the
others. No animal except man had acquired mastery over others.
Man did not perform this by powers eurnmgto him with other ani-
mals, but by the powers and facelties whie he bad exclusively.
If we we thus able to overcome the infenuf powers in other ant-
male, we ought surely to be able to overcome them within ourselves.
But it unfortunately happened that our lower ftelinge, generally
speaking, governed us ; though he hoped the time would come
when that would cease to be the case. Our feelirgs at present al
most entirely governed our superior powers. A mother loyal her
children whether they werejust ortunmee BS In as those feel-
ings were strong, legislation would therefore be necessary. One I
man would look upon the same object with very different feelings
from another, and yet nothing was more comnion than to judge
men by ourselves. Every individual was apt to make himself the
standard cf all mankind. Phrenology corrected their erroneous
views, and demonstrated the nature of the separate powers in
each individual. It was by mutual forbearance that men lived in
society. We all differed in some points, but we were not, on that
account, to quarrel. Every act that man did was modified. In le-
gislation it was necessary that all the powers should be taken into
consideration, or that code where they were not would ltgimperfect.
It was another question to examine in what manner each power was
to be modified. The Professor, after some general remarks, con-
cluded with saying that be would, in his next Lecture, endeavour
to show what he called the character or modifications of eherarter in
each individual, and the difficulties that lay in the way o: judging
others by ourselves.

A pamphlet has been published .by Mr. Harmer, in the
case of Harris, the convict, wbei was lately executed at
Newgate for robbin r and iiistreating a girl in the service of
Mr. Hale, of Spitaltields. The object of the fairs and
arguments adduced in this pamphlet is to prove Harris's
innocence. Those who remember the great ability which
distinguished Mr. Harmer's exertions in the case of Hol-
loway and Itaggerty will be prepared for the acuteness and
ingenuity he evinces in the investigation of the case of
Harris. Mr. Harmer appears to litre spared no pains in
vindication of his wretched client both before and since his
execution. The conclusion lie deduces from the whole is
impressive : the fate of Harris, he observes, is a " strik-
ing example of the slight tenure by • hich men who have
once placed themselves in the power of the police, bold their
lives, and cf the security which honest and industrious
pursuits afford against false accusations. No man of good
character would have been selected as the object of such a,
charge; anti against no one, bat a reputed thief, cenid it
have been stmetsfe,l."