painted, rather than the specific details of the character and life. The power of describing the general impression and sentiment, which is associated with the letter or the life of the writer, is much more common than the power of discovering the particular facts.

To a correct reasoner, these imperfect experiments constitute a complete demonstration of the psychometric power. Indeed, the most meagre of our experiments are sufficiently convincing, when impartially examined; for, in describing any individual, each trait or feature of his character would admit of at least a hundred different descriptions, of which only one would be true. The probabilities, therefore, are a hundred to one against the correctness of each statement; and the entire truth of the description, if it were mere guess work, would be a coincidence beyond the utmost range of probability. If an artist should attempt to paint the portrait of an unknown individual, without any hint by which to guide his fancy, it is perfectly certain that his fancy-sketch could not, by any admissible possibility, become a true portrait. If the portrait should prove a faithful one, it would be impossible to convince any one that the artist had never seen his subject, and knew not his name, country, age, sex, or pursuits. So, when a psychometric portrait proves correct, we are compelled to believe that the psychometer has had some means of satisfactory observation, and that a true portrait has not been painted by accident.

The demonstration of a psychometric experiment is so complete, that no objection can have any material weight, excepting one which is based upon its truth. It may be affirmed that the psychometer derives his impressions, not from the letter, but from the minds of those around him-that he has a sympathy with them, which enables him to interpret their views, independent of any impression from the paper. To those who have witnessed many mesmeric experiments, this suggestion has much plausibility; and I would not deny that, in some cases, the sentiments of those about him may influence a very sympathetic individual, and modify his conclusions; but these extraneous influences are not the source of his impressions. If he holds the letter in his hands, he recognizes its impression as commencing at the point of contact, and traversing the arm to the brain, giving him an idea of the character only after the brain has been impressed. If it is held on the forehead, he perceives the influence more readily, which is diffused from the letter over his head, and which affects distinctly the particular organs that are most highly excited. He perceives that the letter is the source of his impressions, and if it should be enveloped in paper, each ad ditional fold of paper increases the difficulty of receiving the impression. The immediate contact of the writing is the most efficient means of communicating the impression, and the different portions of the manuscript frequently communicate different ideas, according to the tenor of the writer's thoughts.

The same opinions will be given by the psychometer in the presence of different persons, whether they have or have not any

idea of the character of the autograph. He can exercise the power as well alone, as he can exercise any of his other senses. He can take a letter, the moment it has been received from the post-office, and investigate its character alone, before he has opened it to learn its source or contents. The psychometric power is a power of independent perception, not derived from the opinions of those about us, but exerted like the sense of sight or smell, by our own independent action.

To demonstrate, more clearly, this independence of the psychometer, I have frequently had opinions pronounced upon autographs, without myself knowing the names until the close of the experiment. In such cases, the opinions were as bold and as accurate as when I knew the subject of the experiment. In 1844, I selected the autographs of Dr. Spurzheim, Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, the novelist, and Ellen Tree, the actress, and placing them upon the table, requested Miss W. to examine and give her opinions of the manuscripts before her. She proceeded to investigate them without my knowing which of the three she had selected (herself totally ignorant of the nature of the autographs). When they were examined, at the conclusion of the experiment, I found that her opinions had been given as correctly as in other cases, having readily recognized one of the characters as a female, and the others as males. The descriptions of Miss Tree and of Bulwer are here given; that of Dr. Spurzheim was equally satisfactory, but may be given more appropriately on some other occasion. It should be remarked, that from her puritanic sentiments and education, Miss W. was not calculated to sympathize with Bulwer or Miss Tree, and, therefore, did not give a favorable estimate. The object of publishing the report, is merely to show that an experiment, in which neither of the parties engaged (and no one else was present) has any knowledge of the autograph at the time, may be as successful as under any other circumstances.

MISS ELLEN TREE-by Miss W.

"Influence weak-not agreeable; perhaps not in good health. Think it is a lady. She is fit for a teacher, but is rather irritable in temper. She has little submission; she is domineering."

(What sphere in life?) "Must be engaged in teaching, or something of that sort. (Teaching what?) I can't imagine her teaching children-but it seems she's some sort of a teacher. She is bold, haughty, and forward, and not very conscientious. She would not stop to think, if she was going to act right or wrong. She is not at all deceptive. She will act herself; if she is cross, she will act it out."

(Can you tell any more about her pursuits?) "She seems one of that sort of people seems to me rather a public-it seems rather theatrical. I don't know whether that's the exact word, but she seems just fit for a play-actress. I think she must be a play-actress; I can't think of any thing else. If she were going to act, she would take some deep tragedy-there's nothing comical about her.

P

I think she would produce great excitement wherever she was. (Describe her capacities and character as an actress?) I should -enjoy listening to her and seeing her act, very much. I should get very much excited. (Why?) It would seem to me like reality! (What grade of talent do you give her?) Medium. She has not a great mind. (What professional talent?) I don't think she 'd be fit for any thing but just what she is a good actress. I don't think she's particularly refined or modest."

(How does she appear before the public, and what reputation does she make?) "I think she would have the name of being a good actress. I think she might be a star. She is rather masculine, I think. I think she would act Richard the Third well, and be quite a noble character there; she is better suited for that than any thing else. I don't like her character-she's bold and forward; there is nothing refined or modest about her. If she would settle down in private life, she would not be noticed much. She has a good memory. She could remember any thing, but she could n't write-she has n't mind enough. I don't think she is much, except as a play-actress. I'd like her on the stage, but no where else." EDWARD L. BULWER-by Miss W. (After Spurzheim.)

(Is it like the other?) "He's a calmer sort of being. I think the person would rather sit down and read and write, than any thing else. I think he's very serious, very thoughtful, very imaginative. He's not a very active man. I think he's a public man, but I don't think he's a professional man or a politician. I guess he is n't very sociable; he's a solitary sort of being-he likes to be by himself and not be disturbed--he's very intellectual. I think people generally like him better than

"I should n't altogether fancy him. (Why?) I don't know what, but there's something about him rather repulsive. He can be very refined and polished, but he is n't always particular to be so; he's either a public speaker or writer. I've either heard him or read his writings. I don't think he improves any by speaking or writing. I think he hurts himself in some way. I think he's a great lover of nature; he has a very fine way of describing it—would make you realize it."

"It's no one that I know. I only know him from something that I've heard or seen. He might preach up good doctrines, but he would n't always practice them. I think there's a great deal of romance about him. I think he's a writer, but I don't think that what he'd write would benefit society much; he's more a writer of romance and fiction. It do n't seem he'd ever speak or write upon the reforms of the day. I do n't think I'd like him much; he do n't seem to take the right ground-he is n't refined enough."

(What's his domestic character?) "He's a great literary character. I can't think of any thing else. He's kind-hearted, and disposed to treat people well. I think he might be agreeable, but not very talkative. (How toward his wife?) He thinks more of his pen than of his wife-might preach up good doctrine, but would

not practice it. He'd always be kind and pleasant enough, but he's more engaged in other things."

(What are his leading aims and tendencies?) "I think he wants to please the people, whether it is true or not. I don't think he's very conscientious. (Has he any philanthropy?) Yes, I think he has, not to a very great degree. (Is he republican, or aristocratic?) Rather aristocratic-very stately and dignified. (How as to taste in writing?) One would be excited in reading his writings, but I do n't think they would require a great deal of thought."

ART. III.—CRANIOLOGY AND CRANIOSCOPY.

(CONTINUED.)

THE variety of impressions upon the internal surfaces of different crania is very instructive, when connected with their causes. It is generally admitted that the animal organs are more active and influential than the moral. Indeed, the present state of society, and the whole history of the human race, illustrate this predominance. Our social and political arrangements are based upon the fact, that selfishness is the predominant motive of mankind. But the general conformation of the human cranium does not sufficiently account for this predominance; for the basilar organs have not that general predominance of development which the selfish passions exhibit in the history of mankind. The explanation must be found in the different degrees of activity and intensity of action in the different organs, produced by the laws of nature, or arising from the constitution of society.

The constitution of society, at present, throws each individual upon his own resources, and requires him to pursue his own interests to the neglect of the welfare of others. If he should fail to give this assiduous attention to his own interests, and consequently should fall into want, he is punished, not only by physical suffering, but by the neglect and scorn of society; but, if he should pursue his own pecuniary interests, and gain wealth, even by the violation of justice and benevolence, he is respected and honored. Thus we are continually impelled, by the highest rewards and the severest penalties, to exercise the selfish rather than the virtuous faculties. But, aside from the structure of society, the laws of nature involve the same necessity, for paramount activity of the animal organs. The external senses, the muscular and other physiological powers are connected with the basis of the brain. Hence, while animal life continues, it is impossible that the activity of the basilar or

gans should be suspended. The indispensable activity of the external senses, the regularly returning demands of hunger, and the restless impulses of the muscular system, maintain the basilar action in all cases, however torpid the superior regions of the brain may beWe need not, therefore, wonder that even heads of predominant coronal development should often manifest unworthy sentiments and degrading passions. The fact is explained, when upon examination of the interior of the skull, we find that, for many years, the sustained activity of the basilar organs has given them a decided growth, and produced an indentation of the cranium, while the torpid condition of the superior portions of the brain has left the internal table of the skull entirely smooth, and produced an unusual thickness of the bone over the inactive organs.

The facts presented in the study of Craniology, constitute an admirable illustration of the power of education. We find that the exterior table of the skull, which indicates the original plan of cerebral development, often differs widely from the interior table, which indicates the actual condition of the brain. If we examine the cranium of a man of depraved character, we find generally that the exterior of the skull, alone, does not tell the true story. The external form indicates the design of nature, and the place in society which he was adapted to fill; but it does not indicate, with certainty, that he was guilty of any crime. In the exterior conformation of almost all skulls, we find sufficient indications of the intellectual and moral organs to justify the belief that, under a proper system of education, the individual would be capable of complying with the laws of society and fundamental rules of a moral life. It is a great mistake to suppose that the heads of all criminals are marked by great deficiencies in the moral and intellectual regions. On the contrary, we frequently find that the head of a criminal will compare advantageously, in point of external development, with the heads of others who have never been known to violate the laws.

The head of Morgan Williams, a murderer, executed in Arkansas, of which this cut presents a correct profile, is one of striking symmetry, and of large development. When it was first presented to me, I should have given it a fine character, had I not reflected that the interior might tell a different story, and taken care to examine the thickness of the bone before pronouncing an opinion.

A collection of criminal crania is a melancholy commentary upon the system of society in

which we live. We see, in the exterior forms of these crania, that nearly every one of these victims of law and social order was designed and fitted for a station of usefulness and happiness, so far as regards his natural constitution. We see, if Craniology can teach us any thing at all, that these wretched beings were originally endowed with the sense of duty and honor-with benevolence. reli