The Sun. — 1849-10-09 (London, England)

THE PHRENOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE HEAD OF THE MURDERER WILSON.  TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.  Sra,—Considerable attention of late years has been directed, by scientific men, to the phrenological developments of great criminals; some very just and important remarks have been made on the subject, and some striking manifestations certainly have been occasionally furnished—though we unquestionably think that many of the representations mad© in so positive and absolute a manner should be received with great caution, and with considerable limitation. It appears that, when the late atrocious murderer, Wilson, was executed at Liverpool, only one cast of his head was taken, and that presented some striking developments. It is stated that he had, according to Spurzheim's technical, or as many deem it, scientific phraseology, " amativeness, combativeness, destructiveness, secre• tiveness, self-esteem, and firmness, very large ; acquisitiveness large, and love of approbation full." The region of the moral sentiments was both low and narrow. The organ of ideality was most strikingly deficient, thus leaving the character utterly unrelieved in its grossness. The cincipital part of the head was in the form which an idiot's head might be expected to assume. The organs of the perceptive faculties were tolerably well developed ; but those of the reflective powers were very small. The temperament is represented as having been a combination of "the sanguineous and the bilious"—a most unfavourable one, as giving the greatest activity, permanency, and strength, to the manifestations of the predominating animal propensities. Now, granting that all this is phrenologically correct, arid admitting, as we ingenuously do, that phrenology has made some singular disclosures, and that it is, by no means, as many tell us, to be disregarded and despised, ought not its representations to be carefully weighed, and to be received with great caution, in connexion with moral tendencies, and positively necessary tendencies, arising out of physical conformation, and particularly the structure and appearances of the skull? We would not ridicule, nor would we idly disbelieve, still we consider that, in reference to these points, very great caution is requisite. We have examined the casts of more than one atrocious criminal, and have not found the developments which we expected; sometimes very different have been presented. If the statements of phrenologists be absolutely credited, it was necessary for Wilson to be a murderer, and one certainly of the vilest and most atrocious character; that in consequence of the phrenological developments, there would necessarily be " the cunning of the gof thefoxh,yaenn. and the" violent, savage, rind ruthless passion But is it, we ask, really, necessarily, invarbbly so ? Is a man, because he has similar structural developments, compelled to commit murder, and muriler of the vilest kind ?  Would such a combination of phrenological manifestations necessarily, and in every instance, lead to the perpetration of foul crime ? Have early training:, the omission of early moral discipline, the abandonment or the forgetfulness of religion, nothikg whatever to do with it ? We would not indulge, as many superior men do, in unqualified remarks opposed to phrenology as a science, or pour forth any raillery, because we consider that there is much truth aud force in some of its representations ; still we cannot help thinking that they are carried very often, in the case of criminals, a great deal tco far. Phrenological developments may often communicate much, or predict much ; still, in regarding these, we would not lose sight of moral causes—the want of early attention, early education, early discipline and restraint-the neglect of inculcating those sentiments of moralityand Christianity, by regarding which all crime would be avoided, whatever its comparative insignificance, as well as those enormous offences whose penalty is the gibbet. We often consider that these points are much lost enthusiastic hey a r i nu n theirqua . and ins as so .c science, that everything devotion in t bhtyoe ratheir pe iftrai eovnno ous must be made to square with it—everything must be subservient to it, and even moral and religious considerations are passed by, as matter comparatively undeserving of attention and regard. We would, in conclusion, observe that phrenology cannot be utterly disbelieved, still it cannot be absolutely credited. Its statements on moral developments, particularly, often demand great cautiozi. I remain, Sir, yours, &c., Bridport.  T. W.