The second step in a phrenological examination is the determination of the quality of the organization. Perhaps there is no branch of the science of phrenology which has received such crude treatment at the hands of phrenological writers as this subject of organic quality. Many use the term interchangeably with temperament, some confound it with temperament and hereditary disposition, others recognize it as a distinct modifying condition; but I know of no writer, except myself, who has yet attempted a classification of the subject, or who has dared to recognize its importance as a modifying condition of character. Quality is the texture of organization, and in this respect must be regarded entirely independently of temperament. The latter is conceded to depend upon the preponderance or relative energy of some part of the system, anatomically or pathologically; but each of the conditions denominated as temperaments may exist, with widely different manifestations of the peculiar conditions we describe as quality, with a corresponding modification of the character of the subject in each case. Hence the necessity of a rational classification, based upon the independent observation of these modifications of quality as a distinct subject, in order to apply it as a distinct step in a phrenological examination. The trees of the forest present distinct variations of quality, depending on the texture of the wood. The hickory is hard, the ash is brittle, the pine is soft, etc. An examination of the texture of the human organization will disclose variations, different, it is true, but some times strikingly analogous, and no less important in determining the fitness of the individual for particular purposes. We determine quality by a critical inspection of the general contour of the body, its relative size, the adaptation of its parts to each other, the color and grain of the skin, the relative harmony of the features, the relative brightness of the eyes, the color and texture of the hair, the movements of the body, the tone of the voice, and the rapidity of mental process. To determine quality accurately may sometimes require a series of experiments on the individual, and the success of the examiner will of course depend on his own acuteness of perception and judgment. [Illustration: Jack Langrishe.--Quality Strong.] Quality is, (1) Strong; (2) Delicate; (3) Responsive. And conversely, (1) Weak; (2) Coarse; (3) Sluggish, and in proportion as these elements unite to form an efficient and powerful organization, we may speak of the quality as "high," or as we find them wanting, we may call the quality "low."