be

riality of the human mind. Vitality, connected with the intellectual properties of man, appears to be essentially different from the material elements of which the human body is compounded 5. If it were not it would be difficult sometimes to account for the phenomena of death as it occurs in some individuals. If the mind were a material substance, necessarily arising out of the material body, it would remain joined to the body so long as the material particles of the body were connected together. But that this is not the case is evident from the circumstance of death frequently occurring to old people, without such a destruction of the material structure of their bodies as we may fairly suppose to necessary, to account, upon the principles of Materialism, for death. In many cases immediately after death, at least before the process of putrefaction has broken down the parts, let the body be subjected to accurate dissection, and you will find that the brain, which as you tell us is the seat of the material mind, is apparently sound and perfect. How could this be if your view of the subject were correct? I know, that in cases of diseased brain ending in death, your doctrine may account for it, though not even then as I think quite upon the principles which you lay down. But when death happens from causes which leave the brain but slightly affected, and especially from causes which do not very seriously affect some important viscus, which as I have before observed is sometimes the case, particularly in old people, you will, I think, have some difficulty in rationally accounting for this death of the material mind as you call it, while the material body is thus connected together.

I have but little doubt that the following remark, in Mr. Lawrence's work, has done much to give currency to this doctrine of the materiality of the human mind; but which, for the reasons I shall give, after inserting the quotation, I believe to be very ill-founded. Mr. Lawrence says, "the

5 Just as sound or motion is different from the matter moved. You cannot have sound without the motion of matter, nor vitality without the animal organization. It is as near akin as the fiddle and its notes. Crack the fiddle and it dies.

R. C.

• An obstruction to the circulation of the fluids in the body may occur without injury to the frame; even whilst it is most perfect. That obstruction in certain cases is death, almost always or often arising from the state of the fluids.

R. C.

same kind of facts, the same reasoning, the same sort of evidence altogether, which shew digestion to be the function of the alimentary canal; motion of the muscles, the various secretions of the respective glands, prove that sensation, perception, memory, judgment, thought, in a word, all the manifestations called mental or intellectual, are the animal functions of their appropriate apparatus, the central organ of the nervous system.' Now, Sir, I do not see the analogy here attempted to be set up by Mr. Lawrence. If we open a dead body we are at once convinced, that digestion is the function of the alimentary canal, because we are enabled to trace the food through the various steps of the process of digestion. In like manner, if we examine the different glands, we shall find in the ducts connected with each, a portion of that fluid which is its proper secretion. In the same manner, we discover, by the contraction which takes place in muscles when they are exposed during surgical operations, that motion is the function of the muscles. We can also produce the same effect, by the application of Galvanism, on a subject recently dead. Hence, then, we have the most direct and satisfactory proof, that digestion is the function of the alimentary canal, motion of the muscles, and the various secretions of the respective glands. But how will Mr. Lawrence demonstrate the analogy? Will he shew us a brain in the act of thinking? Or, will he shew us a single thought recently produced by it? Unless he does this, the deduction seemingly wished to be established, fails at once, because the analogy attempted to be proved, no longer holds good. And that he cannot do this, it is not surely necessary for me to attempt to prove.?

I will now pass over to what you say, or rather to the quotation you give from Mr. Lawrence, in answer to my observations respecting the want of speech which characterizes the ouran-outang. After giving the quotation from Mr. Lawrence, you triumphantly exclaim "there Sir, that settles the quesstion." Now, Sir, I do not exactly see how this does quite settle the question; for, independent of what might possibly be urged against this conclusion, I will now give you a quotation from Mr. Lawrence's book, which seems to

7 But it can be proved by shewing that, in the contrary case, the immateriality of the mind is not dependent on the body or nervous system of the body, it would exist when that system was defunct. Does it not, as Mr. Lawrence argues, live and die with the body? R. C.

bear somewhat against this inference. Speaking of the faculty of speech, which distinguishes man from other animals, Mr. Lawrence says, "Man exhibits, by external signs what passes within him, he communicates his sentiments by words, and this sign is universal. The savage and the civilized man have the same powers of utterance; both speak naturally, and are equally understood. It is not owing, as some have imagined, to any defect in their organs, that animals are denied the faculty of speech. The tongue of a monkey is as perfect as that of a man. Camper asserts, that the laryngeal pouch renders it impossible for the ouran-outang to speak. I do not clearly understand how this is ascertained; but allowing its truth, there are other monkeys who have not this pouch, and yet cannot speak. Several animals may be taught to pronounce words and even to repeat sentences, which prove clearly that the want of speech is not owing to any defect in their organs, but to make them conceive the ideas which these words express is beyond the power of art. They articulate and repeat like an echo or machine.

"Language implies a train of thinking; and for this reason, brute animals are incapable of speech; for, though their external senses are not inferior to our own, and though we should allow some of them to possess a faint dawning of comparison, reflection, and judgment, it is certain that they are unable to form that association of ideas in which alone the essence of thought consists 7."

"There Sir," to use your own expression, what think you of that? You see Mr. Lawrence here teils us that it "is not owing to any defect in their organs that some animals cannot speak." The reason, he says, is, that "language implies a train of thinking, of which brute animals are incapable." He even tells us that " some animals may be taught to speak, but then," says he, "they articulate and repeat like an echo or machine."

To you, Sir, the eulogist and admirer of Mr. Lawrence (of whom I do not wish to be understood as speaking with disrespect, for I am ready to allow, that his work contains many important facts and much useful information) I leave 7 Such has been the case with millions of human beings; and is to this day. R. C.

• The difference in the organization makes all the difference in animals, Wherever the same organizations exist, the same results follow. As to capacity, accidents may be required to bring them into action.

R. C.

the task of reconciling or explaining away, as far as you are able, the apparent contradictions here implied.9 Wishing you to bear in mind, that as you regarded your quotation from Mr. Lawrence, as being quite conclusive against me, so I am on the same ground, justified in regarding my quotation as equally conclusive against yourself.

I will now, though perhaps not in the strict line of argument, bring you back to what you say on the neutrality of the human mind I need not demonstrate to you that almost every species of matter is in a state of continual progressive change. This general law applies with peculiar force to the material elements of the human body; every part of which is in a state of constant change. Let us apply this fact to your doctrine, and see how it will stand the test. Memory is a constituent part of the mind. Now, if memory be nothing more than an impression made on the brain, which is material, by what means is it retained, seeing that the brain, like every other portion of the healthy body, is always throwing off the old particles and receiving depositions of new matter in their stead. That recollection is retained, notwithstanding this continual change going on in the brain, will not be disputed, The fact might be proved a thousand ways. For instance, what is more common than to hear old persons relate with the greatest minuteness the most trifling events of their childhood? This being, you will remember, very long after that portion of brain which first received the impression, has been thrown off, and its place supplied by new depositions of matter. How, upon the principle of materialism, do you account for this? should much wish you to give an answer to this question.10

With respect to the system taught by Drs. Gall and Spurz. heim, which you so much admire," it would, at present, take up quite too much time to analyze it in all its parts.

I see no real contradiction in the matter. Camper attributes the want of speech in the ourang-outang to the laryngal pouch. Mr. Lawrence to a want of capacity to associate ideas. This by no means removes the dissimilarity of organization. Both rest upon the same grounds; though they differ as to the peculiar organ. R. C.

10 You shall have it as in a former case, by the contrary question. Does memory extend beyond the body? Is it independent of the body? My ignorance of particular phenomena can be no proof of your proposition. R. C.

11

Really I do not admire it; for I started objections the first

Nor does it strike me as being, just now, very necessary. I shall, therefore, only observe, that their claim to originality, if they do make it, as far, at least, as their mode of anatomical demonstration goes, does not appear to be very well founded. There are three modes of dissecting the human brain. The particular details of which, as, perhaps, they might neither be very intelligible nor very interesting to a great portion of your readers, I shall not give, but shall content myself with observing, that, as far as my knowledge goes, it is evident, that the mode practised by Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, was discovered long ago, and, in a great measure, practised by Varolius first, and afterwards by Vicussens, whose work, I believe, has remained in a state of discredit and obscurity which it did not merit. In giving this statement, I wish to be understood, as not being at all actuated by any invidious feeling towards Drs. Gall and Spurzheim, but merely by a wish to render an act of justice to the dead.

I will now make a few brief remarks on what you said a short time ago, in a letter addressed to the Lord Chancellor, Eldon. You there tell him, that in two years' time, you will make him acknowledge your superiority. I mean it not offensively, when I say, that I regard you as being quite an enthusiast in the propagation of your favourite opinions. It is in the nature of enthusiasm to be much too sanguine, so I take it to be with you. Hence it is, that I regard this saying of yours to the Lord Chancellor, as having no foundation in truth.12 At the expiration of the two years which you mention, you will, I believe, if you both live, be in about the same relative situation to each other that you now are; that is to say, Lord Eldon will still be the Chancellor, and you, in all probability, still a prisoner.

With respect to the progress of your opinions on which you appear to calculate for producing some decided effect in your favour, I believe you are quite mistaken. It would, perhaps, be difficult to refer to a period in the history of the world, when greater exertions were being made for the propagation of religious opinions, than are being made at present. And, if the reports of Bible Associations, Missionary Societies, Annual Conferences &c. are at all to be depended upon, there has scarcely ever been a period when these ex

time I noticed it. I have the organ of veneration of religion, very large! I think the system curious, and worthy of further research. R. C.

12 It is a question as to probability.

'R. C.