unavoidably be less perfect in these two; and the attempts to carry on magazines devoted exclusively to Zoology or Botany has met with small encouragement hitherto. Not that we think either department has yet had a fair trial apart from the other; for the separate journals have never been conducted in such a way as to attract many readers, and make a general circulation amongst zoologists or botanists at all likely to be obtained. But to enlarge on this subject here would be out of place. The Magazine mentioned above is chiefly zoological; but a little botany is thrown in, doubtless with the view of extending the circulation of the Work; for botanists, having no exclusive Journal of Botany, must either buy several journals, of the contents of which botanical subjects make a part, or must take the other alternative of remaining ignorant of the progressive state of their science. Now, we conceive that Comparative (or Animal) Phrenology, ought to enter into the plan of every zoological periodical; for surely the mental characteristics of animals, as indicated by their habits and organisation, must afford a subject of study to a philosophical naturalist, at least equally interesting as is an examination of the various colours in the feathers of birds, or the shape and the size of their toes and bills; or an enumeration of the number of teeth in the jaws, or bones in the tails of quadrupeds. But whatever interest Animal Phrenology_might afford to philosophical naturalists, the fact is that zoologists pay no attention to it as yet; and the Magazine of Zoology, as far as we remember, has never alluded to the subject. Still, the phrenological gleaner may occasionally find a few grains of corn for himself, and we have introduced this slight notice of the work for the purpose of presenting one of these grains to our own readers, as a striking illustration of the influence of external circumstances in modifying the habits of animals. Every boy in England is aware of the shyness or timidity of the persecuted magpie; indeed, so great is the caution of these birds in some districts, that an inexpert marksman finds it difficult to approach within his own gunshot distance of them; yet we have only to cross a narrow sea, for the opportunity of studying the character of the magpie in a totally opposite condition with respect to timidity; and we should be glad if any of our ornithological friends could compare the skulls of English and Norwegian magpies, so as to ascertain whether the difference of habit is not accompanied by some difference in cranial configuration. In an article on the Ornithology of Norway, in the number of the Magazine above mentioned, Mr. Hewitson thus speaks of this species: "The magpie is one of the most abundant, as well as most interesting, of the Norwegian birds, — noted for its sly cunning habits here,

its altered demeanour there is the more remarkable. It is upon the most familiar terms with the inhabitants, picking close about their doors, and sometimes walking inside their houses. It abounds in the town of Drontheim, making its nest upon the churches and warehouses. We saw as many as a dozen of them at one time seated upon the gravestones in the churchyard. Few farm houses are without several of them breeding under the eaves, their nests supported by the spout. In some trees close to houses, their nests were several feet in depth, the accumulation of years of undisturbed and quiet possession."

Besides affording us an example of the effect of human treatment in developing the instincts of birds, there is a second application of this passage to Phrenology. It will be observed that the writer of the passage alludes to the "sly cunning habits" of the magpie in this country, and then, by way of contrast, makes a statement in proof of less timidity being manifested in Norway, without the slightest mention of any habit evincing less slyness or cunning. It is obvious from this confounding of two very different feelings, cunning and timidity (Secretiveness and Cautiousness), that a good ornithologist, accustomed to observe the habits of birds, will blunder in his explanation of them, unless in possession of some analytical key to the mental faculties, such as is afforded by Phrenology. We are surprised it should not have at once occurred to Mr. Hewitson, that the domestic animal, of all others most habitually the inmate of our houses, is also the most sly and cunning of our tamed animals: we mean the cat. We are disposed to believe that the slyness or cunning of the magpie aids the bird in appreciating the amount of danger, and thus indirectly renders it venturesome where it is safe to venture. The mag

pie is an observant bird; and its habits, which are usually denominated cunning or sly, appear to spring from the feeling of Secretiveness combined with intellectual observation, Individuality or Eventuality.

VIII. The Philosophy of Human Nature, in its Physical, Intellectual and Moral Relations; with an Attempt to demonstrate the Order of Providence in the threefold Constitution of our Being. By HENRY M CORMAC, M. D. London, Longman and Co. 1837. 8vo. pp. 574.

THIS work having been sent to Edinburgh, in the first instance, did not reach us in sufficient time for the formation

The

of any proper opinion upon its contents, before sending the MS. sheets of our present Number to the printer. subjects discussed by Dr. M'Cormac are so comprehensive and important, that a deliberative perusal of his work will be requisite before any adequate judgment can be given upon it. We hope to speak of it in our next Number; but on looking over the table of contents, and dipping into a few chapters almost at random, we have seen good reason to believe, that in neglecting Phrenology he has deprived himself of an indispensable auxiliary for attaining that clearness and certainty, which might be reached by one thus aided, although inferior to our present author in ability and attainments. But while declining to express an opinion upon a book not sufficiently examined, we cannot forbear quoting one short passage. In speaking of Dr. Bushnan's Work (page 49,) we expressed surprise that a young physician, of good talents, should write on the philosophy of instinct and reason, without availing himself of the lights thrown on his subject by phrenological discoveries. Here, however, we have a physician actually so far in arrear, in regard to the physiology of the brain, as to pen the following sentence: "There is no evidence that the brain is mind, or that it performs the functions of mind." With the first assertion, we fully agree, but no phrenologist we had almost written no physician will join our author in the second.

IV. SHORT COMMUNICATIONS.

Retrospective Strictures. In the last number of the Phrenological Journal (Vol. X. p. 663), my name is introduced into a correspondence between Mr. Sidney Smith and the Editor of the Phrenological Journal, coupled with certain comments on the part of the latter, upon which I beg (in self-defence) to offer some strictures here. In the Statistics of Phrenology there is a slight sketch of successive events, showing the gradual progress of the science, after its introduction into Britain. Amongst these, the commencement of the Phrenological Journal is spoken of; and it is stated that the work "has never been very popular, even among the phrenologists, and has been much complained of as representing the feelings and ideas of its conductors rather than those of the phrenological public; but it seems to be now meeting with a more cordial reception."

This passage was noticed in a review of the Statistics, in the tenth volume of the Journal (page 235); and the reviewer, so far from disputing the reality or soundness of the objection, endeavoured to explain that it could not be otherwise. In the editorial comments on the letter of Mr. Smith, the subject is again alluded to in the following words: "We then regretted, and still regret, that the objections were not better considered by Mr. Watson. Injury, which our perseverance and sacrifices little merited, could not fail to be done by them." I am at a loss what is to be understood from the words "better considered;" but taken in connection with the succeeding sentence, they seem to imply that it would have been better not to have mentioned the objections. But the editor of the Journal should keep in mind, that I was then narrating events as if a party looking on, and not as an advocate retained to plead his cause, and therefore deemed it incumbent upon me to state the expressed opinions of others which so materially differed from my own. If it were true that such opinions existed, and influenced the conduct of others, it would surely not be expected that I should suppress any allusion to them, because by possibility some injury might accrue to the circulation of the Journal, through the mention of them. There would speedily be an end of all truth and candour in criticisms, if a possibility of injury to the interests of any single individual or party were to be held reason sufficient for compelling silence as to defects, or imputed defects. I must, then, maintain, that it was not only justifiable to state the objections, but that it would have been unfair to those who did object, had I spoken of the Journal as if they existed not. It certainly then appeared, and yet appears to me, that the only question for consideration was the reality of the alleged fact. Now, the reviewer (speaking as editor) actually admitted that there were grounds for the objections, and in admitting their existence he could scarcely dispute the likelihood that such grounds would be taken. But lest this should be doubted, I may add that private letters are in my possession, containing remarks to such effect, and that I have frequently heard similar remarks in conversation; but it would be improper to make mischief by mentioning the names of the writers or speakers. Nor are more public evidences wanting. It is well known that some of the London phrenologists, who are in the occasional habit of publishing papers on phrenological subjects, in other periodicals, have avcided the Phrenological Journal. Besides this, Mr. William Scott states, in the Preface to his recently published work, that his connection with the Journal was broken off on the very grounds I have mentioned; and it is known that Mr. Scott had

some friends or followers to keep him in countenance, albeit they were a small body. So much for the fact of the objections having been made. There might be little reason to regard them as good or weighty objections; but they had an existence. As to the injury, which, it is said, "could not fail to be done by them." (By the public mention of them, it is still presumed.) I should suppose this would be exceedingly small. The work was on a peculiar subject, little likely to attract many readers; and probably enough, the majority of those who did see it would consist of the persons to whom it was recommended by the reviewer in the Journal. Moreover, I spoke of the objections as things of a past day, and intimated that the Journal seemed to be "now meeting with a more cordial reception;" and it was also added, that the censures were sometimes made "scarcely in the spirit of justice," and by persons who were not "regular readers." But, I repeat, the fact would not have been suppressed, had there appeared a much greater probability of injury to the Journal, from the disclosure of it. However, it would seem that the commentator on Mr. Smith's letters, though in an editorial light one with the reviewer, yet is not an alter idem in person. The commentator says, 66 we then regretted, and still regret, that the objections were not better considered by Mr. Watson;" while the reviewer wrote, 66 we are happy that Mr. Watson has stated the objections to which we have now replied." The commentator, after saying that the objections had been answered by the reviewer, adds further "we see, and have seen, no reply to that answer." Now, the answer was an admission of the grounds of the objections, and an explanation of their being unavoidable. I was satisfied with the explanation; and had this been otherwise, no reply could have been required on my part, because the objections were not mine, but were stated to be those of other persons. My individual opinion was then given, so far as that could be of any moment, in an earnest and repeated recommendation of the Journal, and I have not since found any reason, or felt any desire, to retract that recommendation.

H. C. WATSON.

The London and Westminster Review, on Enthusiasm." Why Enthusiasm," says a writer in the London and Westminster Review (for July 1837, page 3.), "should make one man a missionary, another man a soldier, and a third a poet, must ever remain a mystery, which neither Helvetius nor Spurzheim can explain." This reviewer has obviously made no very laborious search for an explanation by Spurzheim. So