The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-01-30 00:00:00

MR. RUMBALL'S SECOND LECTURE ON
PHRENOLOGY.

On Tuesday evening last Mr. Rumball delivered his second
lecture on phrenology, at the Medical Institution.
WC were obliged to omit this lecture in our last publication
for want of space, and we have thereby got one in arrear. We
must in consequence, from the great length to which the lec-
tures extend, give them in brief, so far as possible, extracting
the substance.
The lecturer commenced by saying that he must notice some
rernarks and errors with regard to his lectures, which appeared'
in the Liverpool Standat d. He had corrected in a letter some
inaccuracies which had crept into a report of his first lecture,
owing to the crowded state of the room preventing the reporter
taking notes. He should have been content to have left the
Matter there, but that with great generosity the Standard had
given him a very long, and he must say, allo,Ning for some little
variations in the precise shade of sentiment he had expressed, a
very accurate report; and they had been pleased also to make
some remarks on that lecture, to which he felt it necessary to

allude. He had usually put down the opponents of phtetielogy
with a very short sentence, by asking what they knew of phre-
nology, and the answer had always been " nothing." Now the
I Standard did know something about it, but it had been said be-
fore his time that " a little knowledge was a dangerous thing."
He then proceeded to contend that phrenology was no "suppo-
sition." If there were any science which disdained supposi-
tions, which discarded theory, which said " we will only go on
the Newtonian doctrine of deductions" from facts, from expe-
rience from any one matter in which the mind of man has been
occupied, which said we will have no theory for or against,
which said if you will show us anything that is supposition we
will discard it; it was the science of phrenology. If they called
botany a science, which looked into the nature and habits of
plants, if they called zoology a science, which looked into the
character and habits of animals, and physiology, a science
which looked into the nature of diseased structures of living
bodies, why should they not call that a science which took cog-
nizance not only of all this but of man; his mind, and body, and
understanding, what was the end of his being and the means of
obtaining it ? In the allusion to the objection we urged that
interual or inferior develop4ments of the brain, which were con-
cealed, might indicate contrary propensities to what the de-
velopernents of the superficies did, and overwhelm them, and
that therefore so long as only a part of the brain was taken cog-
nizance of, no certain knowledge of a man's capabilities and
character could lie obtained from the surface of the skull atone,
and what therefore became of the science of phrenology? the
lecturer denied that it was any argument against a science be-
cause it was imperfect. It was craneology which the editor of
the Standard had mistaken for phrenology. Ile said " phre-
nology only means the knowledge of bram and character ob-
tained through an examination of the skull." Now that was
craneology. It was a branch of phrenology; but if men had no
external skull—if their heads were buried in fur caps, phreno-
logy would still be a science. Phrenology meaning a knowledge
of the. mind, and especially a knowledge of the mind as mani-
fested by organization, you might be as accurate a phrenologist
now as if you never saw another skull, or if you did not apply
it to parts equally with the skull. It was a science which should
knock down every other, because it gave you a true hist,ry of
the human mind which no other science had attempted; or if
attempted had failed. lie denied that he had said the soul had
always been considered mind. What he said was that the soul
by the generality of philosophers had been considered mind.
He knew that the Standard was correct, that the old philoso-
phers considered man to consist of three things, mind, soul, and
body. Let them show him any one fact whereby they could
show the existence of two immaterial essences, and then he
would allow that man was composed of three distinct principles.
But if they could not do that they would agree with him that it
was a dispute whether the mind was the result of organization
like life, or a first principle, an immaterial principle. If it were
an immaterial principle they could know nothing about it what-
ever, except it was manifested to them, and he had stated that
the dispute had arisen in his mind upon words, as most disputes
had arisen. Men had been taught to consider intelligence and
mind the result of organization from seeing the dependence of
mind on organization. He contended that the phrenologists
were net materialists. If the soul could not keep up the memory,
and judgment, and feelings of the mind, it would go out of the
world a blank, a tablu erasa as it came into the world, accord-
ing to the theory of Aristotle. Therefore the soul had the pro-
perties of the mind, and therefore the mind was the soul. But
the strict rule of logic said you had no right to assume
twe causes when one was enough ; therefore if the soul per-
formed all the functions, which had been considered to apper-
tain to intelligence and mind they were the same. Men had
split themselves into sects, and had become advocates of ma-
terialism or immaterialism, but that did not affect the question
of the soul at all. If we denied that animals had souls, taking
the soul as the mind, we denied ourselves. Mind was not the
result of organization, and yet animals had minds. Whether
or no they they had souls to be saved was a matter which no
philosophy could answer, and what no philosophy would attempt
to mower. That they bad something that took cogukance of
the acts of the body, nobody could deny; but, that they had
sot li to,be saved, no man could contend for. The Bible only
must be their guide. He contended that phrenology threw a
peeler light on the natural application of scripture than any
ttiing else. If ever he found phrenology opposed to the Bible,
he would say phrenology must be false. He alluded to the

doctrine of Dr. M'Cartney, not being able to conceive how the
busiu could act in parts and not as a whole, it was so intimately
c,iiinected that no traces of any division could not be found.
He could not say that he had a very briillant idea or iiis intellect.
Could he conceive how dividing the firth pair pair of nerves
should affect the lips of a donkey or his own lips that he should
not be able to put his lips to food, or not be able to take it up.
He knew be could not conceive anything about the brain, as
connected with the mind. No anotornist of the hraiu had ever
told them the least thing about the mind. In answer to Dr.
Macartney's instance of a man having a pitchfork driven
into his brain, and losing some part of his and yet per-
fectly recovering, and not having his mental functions destnrbed
at all by it, he contended he knew nothing about phrenology ;
the reason why his mental functions were not disturbed was,
because the other parts of the brain could perform their func-
tions. Mr. Ruinball then gave a brief recapitulation of the
heads of his last lecture, before proceeding with the lecture of
the evening. Combativeness was placed about an inch behind
and on a level with the top of the ear on each side of the head.
It was best exhibited in the bull-dog. Every man knew there
was an immense difference between a brave man and a coward;
every man knew that the brave man was instant in courage in
opp6sition to any thing; whereas the coward wouldquail before
any thing. He had examined Sam Scott's head, the jumper,
and he found courage very well developed, and firmness greatly
developed. But he was insane, as he should show. Combative-
ness was not a quality likely to be suddenly provoked, but when
provoked it was like a weapon put into our hands by Providence
when wanted, which should cut down every thing before it,
Sir Sydney Smith had this faculty very fully developed, and
Lord Howe. He did not know what fear was. He quoted a
unmber of examples of the power of this faculty—Joan of Arc,
Lord Cockrane, Paul Jones, &c. The large developemeut of
this faculty predisposed to the commission of violence, if not
checked by other faculties. Those who had this developement
very large would be looked upon as less guilty by the Almighty
then many a man who committed sin less in degree, but with
greater powers of controlling it. It rested between man and his
maker; but it would serve them to read that text, that in the
day of joilginent "the last should he first and the first last."
A man who had this developement must not necessarily become
a martyr to it ; he had the power of controlling it. He was re-
sponsible to both God and man for his conduct, and hound to
control it or meet punishment. Secretiveness was the next
faculty ; it was very strongly developed in some kinds of birds,
and in squire's.. Man had it in his nature, and endeavoured to
conceal by it that which be had acquired. It was in its abuse
that we saw this faculty display itself in the most powerful
manner. •It taught men to conceal their thoughts. Men with-
out this faculty, who told every thing they knew, put themselves
in the position to be imposed upon by every one. Wellington,
when a minister, when asked what he intended to do, answered
" Why, if I thought the hairs of my head knew what I intended
to do !:would have my head shaved and wear a wig." In its
abuse it led to lying. if a man was so secretive as to conceal
what ought to be known, be would conceal it right or e song;
and no means was so ready at hand as a lie. They would find
wbeuever secretiveness formed a decided part of the character,
that the head was enlarged above destructiveness—from the
latter part of destructiveness to the forehead, surrounding de-
structiveness, Arquisitiveness was the next organ. It showed
itself in animals in the desire to acquire, and was greatly mani-
fested in the magpie. In its unrestrained action it led men to
acquire in spite of everything.. The lecturer gave several
examples of this—old Elwes, Daniel Danser, &c. Cautiousness
was the next organ. It was said to be circumspection looking
about. It was not timidity. It tended to self preservation. '
Lord Eldon had great cautiousness. He could never decide
for conscientinusness and cautiousness, and he did more ab-
solute wrong by following out the impulses of his cautiousness
than if he had been hasty. Calf tionsuess was very common to
the female sex ; and secretiveness and acqusitiveness were also
very common to them. The American Indian exhibited this
feature very strongly; he never attacked au enemy in the
front. It was exhibited in the great width of the back part of
the head. The Hindoos were said to have it very large. It
was the combination of these qualities that formed character.
Love of approbation was the next quality. The dog, the horse,
and the peacock all possessed it. The pig and the sheep harlit
not at all. Amongst mankind, females were particularly dis-
tineuished by it. It was very largely developed in the female
character. But it tended to some of their best qualities as
females, though in its abuse it was derogatory to them. The
woman that did not care for the praise of her husband would
make a very so-so wife. In its abuse they had the constancy
and affection of the tried lover frittered away in a thousand
pieces by being exposed to the coxconihery of many. Self-
esteem was the next organ. If man's mind were made up of
understanding and propensities only, why then they would
have men, as he had heard them blasphemously called, haif
beasts and half devils. But, though he possessed propensities
in common with animals, they had no controlling power, and
therefore we did not look on animals as committing theft or
murder; man had this controlling power. Man had implanted
in him by the Divine Being powers essentially opposed in their
nature to the lower propensities, and it was perfectly possible
in any man to control these propensities. Every man not born
an idiot or a lunatic, in a greater or less degree; possessed suffi-
cieut control over his organization, therefore man was respon-
sible to God and to society.
Mr. Iturnball concluded his lecture at ten o'clock.