1815.]. Intellectual Functions of Man and Animals. | 27. 
Now, Sir, however unimportant it may seem to Dr. Leach ta 
investigate the origin of these statements, it seems otherwise to me, 
who imagine myself to have rather a deeper interest in them; and 
(though, in reply to this Gentleman, I shall not imitate him in the 
littleness of perpetually repeating his list of Christian aames, as he 
has done my one ; nor, ignorant though 1 am of him, shall I, like 
Dr. Cross, designate him as one Dr. Leach; for these are tendencies 
to personality, which is the bane of rational discussion ;) yet I shall 
blend the question of the discovery of these facts with that of their 
absolute truth. The question of the discovery of the circulation of 
the blood has not been deemed unimportant : 1 cannot reckon that 
which regards the circulation of nervous action less so; and into 
that question the use of the cerebellum enters. This, Dr. Leach 
will perhaps say is a comparison of very little men with great ones: 
be it so; but it is not a comparison of very little things with great 
ones ; and to things alone do I wish to attend. No one will venture 
to say, that the general functions of the brain and cerebellum are 
less important than that of the heart. 
With regard, then, Sir, to the cerebellum, as Dr. Leach, though 
he begs to be “permitted to assure you that Hufeland thinks it the 
organ of volition,” has not quoted that writer’s expressions, or, what 
is of more importance his reasons for such a conclusion, I cannot 
comment on them. If, however, I may judge of the accuracy of 
this ascription to Hufeland, by the additional assertion which Dr. 
Leach now makes as to Willis also having thought so, the conclu- 
sion will be most unfavourable to the Doctor’s accuracy. Dr. 
Leach, then, adds that “ Willis considered the cerebellum as the 
source of voluntary power.” Now, Sir, it is an absolute fact, that 
Willis asserts the very opposite of this: he says it is the organ of 
involuntary power. ‘* The office of the cerebel,” says he, “« seems 
to be for the animal spirits to supply some nerves, by which invo- 
luntary actions, which are made after a constant manner unknown 
to us, or whether we will or no, are performed.’”’* And now, Sir, 
I hope you will permit me also to assure you, that I am not a little 
surprised that any Gentleman, after accusing another of inaccuracy, 
and referring with such confidence to his own ‘‘ recent examina- 
tions,” should have made so untrue a statement, in order to ascribe 
to an old author new observations. After this, I should be glad, 
indeed, to see Hufeland’s statement, and his reasons for the con- 
clusion alluded to; and, should that writer advance any proofs that 
the cerebellum is the organ of volition, or rather of those impulses 
which cause all muscular action, I shall of course readily resign to 
him the honour or disgrace of the opinion, and shall only regret 
that my reading has not been as extensive and as “ accurate” as 
that of Dr. Leach. 
I am willing, however, to grant something in favour of Willis :— 
* On the Brain, chap. xv. 
