The only proper grounds on which to meet the question, are its _reasonableness_ and its _justice_. Is it _rational_? is it right? In a barbarous community, where _might_ is held as the only grounds of _right_, the doctrine might meet with favour; but among us, who reject such a principle of action, and who profess to be governed by established laws, it is evidently _irrational_; nay, a gross neglect of duty in those who profess to administer our laws, to permit individuals thus to set them at defiance, and under the excitement of passion execute vengeance on each other. But, on the scope of right, the question does not admit of debate. Not only do the principles of our holy religion, in the broadest and most direct terms, condemn all such practices as sinful, but every moral principle of our nature revolts at them. True, were we to suppress the influence of our moral sentiments, and exercise our reasoning faculties in connection with our selfish propensities only, we might say, “injury for injury,” “blow for blow;” but even then we could not say, “death for insult,” for there is no comparison between the two. An insult is limited in its consequence to time; death reaches to eternity. But phrenology teaches us, that we have no right to settle a question of this nature, without exercising our reasoning faculties in connection with the moral sentiments; and I defy any one to prove that the _latter_ ever sanctioned duelling. Nothing can be clearer than that to _decline_ a challenge would be an act of _moral_ courage, and as much more _honourable_ than to accept, as the moral feelings are above the animal instincts. If, therefore, any one choose to differ with me in opinion upon this point, he is welcome to do so, and I envy him not his privilege, for I hold mine to be the legitimate conclusion of a rational and moral view of the subject; ergo, the opposite conclusion must spring from the predominance of the brute propensities acting in concert with the intellect. Again; I am aware that it will be urged, as the most specious argument in favour of duelling, that, in this matter, we are bound to respect _public opinion_. But it has been clearly shown, that public opinion (or that part of it which still advocates this practice) is unquestionably _wrong_ on this subject; and in this enlightened age, every honest man, and every brave man, is bound to _resist_ public opinion in all matters that interfere with humanity, justice, and moral obligation, and thus set forth the noble example of _correcting_ public opinion. And more especially is it the prerogative of phrenology, above all other sciences, (inasmuch as it enables us clearly to analyse the passions and motives of men,) to wield its giant strength, against those vices which neither civilisation nor Christianity has yet been able to subdue.