pation. This complaint is universal. It is urged by the conductors of all public Asylums. And it is urged with the hope that those most deeply interested may be brought to perceive that by postponing remedial measures, they trifle with the sanity and happiness of the objects of their solicitude; they permit the disease to become chronic, and thereby diminish the chances of recovery; and that, on the other hand, by a premature removal from an Asylum they hazard all that has been gained; they expose the mind, as yet weak and unconsolidated, to a most severe experiment; and, for the gratification of what is in reality a selfish wish, place the permanent restoration of the patient in imminent peril. Under all such and similar disadvantages, the number of cures in Insanity is very great; but, were relief sought for with the same avidity, and the instructions of the medical man followed as implicitly in this as in other diseases, the proportion would be nearly doubled.”

This case is copied from a "Report of the Directors of the Montrose Lunatic Asylum, Infirmary and Dispensary," for the year ending June 1. 1837, as being an excellent example of the beneficial results obtained by giving regular employment to the insane, instead of leaving them to brood over and increase their morbid feelings in listless solitude. How forcibly do the arrangements of this Asylum (as shown in the report from which we have quoted) contrast with those of the Pauper Asylum in Vienna, mentioned by Mr. Combe in our last Number! This is only one mode out of a thousand, in which a correct knowledge of the human mind proves beneficial; and yet we still hear men, otherwise sensible, asking what good is to be derived from the studies of phrenologists! The readers of this Journal are already aware that the Montrose Asylum is under the superintendence of our friend Mr. W. Ă. F. Browne; and we rejoice to see that his services are duly appreciated by the acting Managers of the Institution. It is not only as a compliment to Mr. Browne, that we copy the following just acknowledgment of his exertions, introduced into the report of the "House Committee" to the Managers of the Asylum; it is valuable as shewing that phrenologists do not without good cause lay claim to the merit of a more enlightened and successful treatment of the insane, than their predecessors were able to apply:-"Your Committee, in delivering up to the Managers the important trust with which they have been invested, have much pleasure in recording their unqualified approbation of Mr. Browne's unremitting zeal in the performance of his duties as Medical Superintendent, and their respect and esteem for that gentleman. They have observed his uniformly-kind treatment of the Patients under his care, and the

good effects produced on them by his judicious method of setting aside stated hours for employment and for recreation; as likewise the general good order, regularity, and quiet, that prevails in the House, from the excellent arrangements adopted by him. The improved condition of the Asylum seems to be becoming known to the country, if we may judge from the fact of several recent applications for the admission of Patients fo whom the higher rates of board will be paid.”

VI. Morbid Affection of the Organ of Alimentiveness, coincident with Inflammation of the Stomach. - Translated from La Phrénologie, of May 20. 1837.

A. B., a female servant, about thirty years of age, of sanguine temperament, "assez bien réglée," assez bien réglée," was attended three months ago for an intense headache, in the left side of the base of the cranium, anterior to the ear, and extending deep into the head, according to the patient's description. The stomach was simultaneously inflamed; the epigastric region being painful on the slightest pressure, with a sense of extreme heat, &c. Leeches were applied to the epigastric region, and repeated without alleviation of the inflammatory symptoms in the stomach or of those in the head. The patient only felt relief at the moment that she satisfied the hunger, "or rather the appetite," which she felt; but the food, in form of the lightest drinks, was immediately thrown up again. An application of leeches behind the mastoid process, and afterwards to the temporal region, repeated twice (fifty leeches), and the continued application of iced water after their fall, lessened the pain in this region; and then only, and without any fresh application of leeches, was the inflammation of the stomach subdued, so far as to allow the retention of fluids, and to support light food given by degrees. The abdomen no longer had any symptoms of inflammation, but was soft and free from pain. There remained only a slight constipation, which was relieved by simple means.

The patient afterwards continued well for six weeks, when she had a relapse, following a fit of indigestion brought on by eating cold cabbage. The symptoms were similar, although less violent; and the headache, instead of being in the left temporal region, this time was felt in the corresponding situation on the opposite side. The patient described the pain, as if a knife were thrust in front of the ear and almost to the middle of the head.

The writer (M. C. Place), who communicates the case, says that he has observed many others similar to it, and that such affections are often caused by intemperance in wine, spirits, or high-seasoned food.

III. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

1. Human Physiology. By JOHN ELLIOTSON, M. D., F. R. S., &c. Fifth Edition. London: Longman and Co. 1835-8. 8vo.

DR. ELLIOTSON's Physiology is too well known to the profession and to the scientific public, to call for recommendation on our part. The first edition, published in 1815, was simply a Translation of Blumenbach's Institutiones Physiologica, and was so named, but with the addition of several pages of notes by the Translator. In succeeding editions, the notes increased in extent until eventually they much exceeded the original text, whilst the progress of knowledge was rendering this less valuable. At length, in the fifth edition, almost the whole text of the book has proceeded from the pen of Dr. Elliotson, although he has still introduced numerous short passages from the work of Blumenbach. The first part of this edition was published in 1835, the second part not till the latter end of last year, and we presume, from the advertisements, that the third part will be out before the present notice is in print. As a work on Human Physiology in its most general sense, it would not come sufficiently under our own department, to justify the lengthened notice we are disposed to give of its contents; but independently of long notes or remarks on some other topics to which we shall presently allude, the subject of Phrenology is introduced so largely into the notes, which are exceedingly copious, and under such circumstances, that we feel ourselves called upon to enter into the opinions and statements given in the work, even more fully than we shall be able to do within the compass of any notice adapted to a No. of this Journal for which we have already a superfluity of matter on hand.

Besides the brain itself, the nervous system throughout all its parts must be interesting to phrenologists, not only because it constitutes the means of communication between the brain and external world, but also because much of our reasoning upon the cerebral functions derives its force and apparent

soundness in great part from the observed analogies of the nervous system in general. We shall therefore take advantage of Dr. Elliotson's publication, to lay before our non-professional readers a brief account of some particulars relating to recent discoveries (or supposed discoveries) in the functions of the nerves, which all phrenologists ought to be acquainted with. The great principle of a subdivision of functions in the nervous system, or the appropriation of special nervous masses for the special purposes of the animal economy, has now become familiar to all persons moderately conversant with anatomy and physiology. The due appreciation of this important principle in physiology is almost exclusively the growth of the last fifty years. A few isolated facts had been known from a very remote period; but whilst they pointed forcibly enough to the general principle (as we can now understand), there was still so much obscurity in the matter, and so many outstanding facts apparently at variance with the principle, that the prevalent views respecting the uses of the individual parts of the nervous system were a confused chaos, in which there was some truth but much of error. Every candid and well-informed person must now acknowledge that no one has done more than Gall, towards elucidating and demonstrating the grand principle of the plurality and speciality of the nervous organs and functions. For many years the public in general has attributed greater merit, in this respect, to the experiments of Dr. Magendie and Sir Charles Bell, than to the dissections, long-continued observations, and profound reasonings of Gall. Yet, in fact, the two former only demonstrated, by simple and easily-conceived experiments, the accuracy of ideas previously entertained by many persons; and even Sir Charles Bell himself at first failed of seeing the exact inferences to be drawn from his own experiments; indeed, several years elapsed before they were clearly understood, it being reserved for Magendie, as we are informed by Dr. Elliotson, to determine that sensibility was the function solely of the posterior spinal nerves, although Sir Charles Bell had already shewn that the power of voluntary motion depended upon the anterior nerves only. The limitation of function intended here has reference only to sensibility and motion in contra-distinction to each other, as it is yet undetermined whether one or other set of nerves may not have some additional property or use. Dr. Elliotson appears to think this may be the case, "because filaments from the anterior, as well as from the posterior roots, go to the sympathetic ganglia, and certainly not for motion."

Remarkable discoveries, such as those of Dr. Magendie and Sir Charles Bell, are rarely made by the intuitive sagacity of

any single individual. They are gradually reached through the progressive advances of knowledge, dependent on the labours of many persons; and though it be allowed that Dr. Magendie and Sir C. Bell must share jointly in any merit attributed to them, for fairly distinguishing the nerves of sensibility and motion, and were probably each of them directed in some measure by the observations and arguments of others; yet the discovery was their own, and it has been well remarked that even accidental discoveries in science are never made by fools; for discovery implies that degree of mental vigour necessary for following up a first suggestion to its result, and thus outstepping fellow-labourers. In reference to this discovery, and to the applause bestowed upon Sir C. Bell, compared with the neglect of Gall and his labours, Dr. Elliotson writes: "The most ludicrous eulogy is in the Report of the Third Meeting of the British Association. Dr. W. C. Henry says, 'The honour of this discovery (that there are distinct nerves of sensation and motion), doubtless the most important since the time of Harvey*, belongs exclusively to Sir C. Bell.' (p. 62.) Now no new principle was discovered. We knew before that some nerves, as the optic and olfactory, were for sensation only, and some, as the common motor, the external motor, and the internal motor of the eye, and the lingual, for motion only. The only discovery was that two individual nerves were, one for the first function and the other for the second. That no one nerve could be both for sensation and motion had always been evident to reflecting minds. Galen taught his cotemporaries that one set of nerves went to the skin for sensation, and another to the muscles for motion only.... Gall had proved, in the last century, that distinct parts of the nervous system had distinct offices. This he taught in opposition to many of the most noted of his cotemporaries: he taught it with respect to the grand nervous organ- the brain, and with respect to the universal divisions of the nerves. (4to. Vol. i. p. 131. sq.) Sir C. Bell's discoveries are simply individual examples of Gall's great general principle in merely nerves. So little, however, does the gentleman entrusted to report for the Association know of Gall's discoveries, that he not only thus ventured to address it, but,

* What various discoveries are the "most important since the time of Harvey!" Phrenologists say this of Gall's discoveries, and in time the world will say it likewise. Many agree with Dr. Henry, in hoisting Sir Charles Bell to the Harveian throne; while others deem Magendie more worthy of this high seat. Not many weeks ago the Spectator newspaper gravely advanced Dr. Marshall Hall to the same honour; and we may suggest that Mr. Crosse, who was so rapturously lauded by the British Association at Bristol, ought to put in his claim now.