The art of spinning and the use of the bow are quite unknown to many races of savages, and yet would hardly be likely to have been abandoned when once known."

This is surely extraordinary reasoning. It assumes that all the people of a race know all their arts; and that arts may be preserved without the means of perpetuating them. Spinning, for instance, was, for I can scarcely now say is, known in this country; but it was not necessarily known to every family; and migrations from our people might have taken place, and no doubt have actually taken place, of persons among whom spinning was quite unknown. But supposing they did know it once, but that the place to which they went did not furnish them with flax or other material for spinning, How soon would the art be forgotten? Why it is even all but forgotten among ourselves in its primitive form. And so, of the bow. A tribe who once knew its use might be driven out or migrate voluntarily from their native soil. They might go in peace, or have no necessity for the bow in the place in which they sojourned, or which they "colonized "; and if so, the use of the bow,and in a few generations and with further dispersions, the very memory of it,-might easily perish. Unless it has been lately introduced as an amusement, I venture to say the British colonists both of America and Australia carried no specimens or even memories of the bow, once very well known in these islands, along with them. Tens of thousands of our people now know nothing of the bow, though of course its memory is preserved by means of books and a literature, which did not however exist among the primitive races and in the primeval times with which our argument is concerned.

23. But these are not the worst of Sir John Lubbock's arguments in support of this view. He further says:

"The mental condition of savages seems also to me to speak strongly against the degrading' theory. Not only do the religions of the low races appear to be indigenous, but according to almost universal testimony, -that of merchants, philosophers, naval men, and missionaries alike,— there are many races of men who are altogether destitute of a religion. The cases are, perhaps, less numerous than they are asserted to be; but some of them rest on good evidence."

The recklessness of the statement here made is extreme. What is first called "almost universal testimony," emphasised with the parenthesis that this means, that the testimony "of merchants, philosophers, naval men and missionaries alike," is to the effect that many races of men have no religion,immediately is qualified and dwindles down to this, that

perhaps only some races are in that condition. Sir John very sensibly questions some of the modern testimony on this subject (and I may observe all the ancient testimony is the other way*); but then, why first cite it as testimony? He frankly lets out, however, how he feels the evidence ought to go! for he adds:

"Yet I feel it difficult to believe that any people, which once possessed a religion, would ever entirely lose it."

All religions, it is to be observed, are here merely put on a level; and he continues :

'Religion appeals so strongly to the hopes and fears of men, it takes so deep a hold on most minds, it is so great a consolation in times of sorrow and sickness, that I can hardly think any nation would ever abandon it altogether. Moreover, it produces a race of men who are interested in maintaining its influence and authority. Where, therefore, we find a race which is now ignorant of religion, I cannot but assume that it has always been so."

I have not time upon this occasion to argue against this astounding assumption. I believe it will be felt to be contrary to the experience of all who hear me, even as regards true religion, whether respecting themselves, their children, or their less-instructed neighbours. If Sir John Lubbock's experience is otherwise, and as he argues, he is certainly to be envied, unless he is under some strange delusion. He does not seem even to know of a "party" in our day who are eager to exclude the teaching of religion from the rising generation.

24. But I must ask, Are all religions alike? Do corrupt religions afford "consolation in times of sorrow and sickness"? Do they appeal "to the hopes of men"? And do all even who have been taught Christian doctrine, which does all this, desire to maintain it? Has Sir John Lubbock not heard of M. Comte, and the "Positive Philosophy"? Here, in this Institute, we have heard Mr. Austin Holyoake declare that he was taught Christianity by a pious Calvinistic mother. He is now an Atheist. Were he and his brother and Mr. Bradlaugh to migrate to some unoccupied region, would they not endeavour to abandon all teaching of religion? And what of its abandonment through sheer ignorance? What was discovered by Parliamentary inquiry about thirty years ago in our mining districts? What, in short, is in every man's experience round about, who studies his fellow-men? Does it justify Sir John Lubbock's assumption, or utterly refute it? I am sure I need

* Vide Cicero, De Nat. Deor., i. 23; and Plutarch, Adv. Colot., in loc.

scarcely reply, that it refutes it altogether. So I now pass on to his quasi facts in support of his views.

25. He says:

"I will now proceed to mention a few cases in which some improvement does appear to have taken place. [1.] According to MacGillivray, the Australians of Port Essington, who, like all their fellow-countrymen, had formerly bark canoes only, have now completely abandoned them for others hollowed out of the trunk of a tree, which they buy from the Malays. [2.] The inhabitants of the Andaman Islands have recently introduced outriggers. [3.] The Bachapins, when visited by Burchell, had just commenced working iron. [4.] According to Burton, the Wajiji negroes have recently learned to make brass. [5.] In Tahiti, when visited by Capt. Cook, the largest morai, or burial-place, was that erected by the reigning Queen. The Tahitians also had then very recently abandoned the habit of cannibalism. [6.] Moreover, there are certain facts which speak for themselves. Some of the North American tribes cultivated the maize. Now the maize is a North American plant; and we have here, therefore, clear evidence of a step in advance made by these tribes. [7.] Again the Peruvians had domesticated the llama. Those who believe in the diversity of species of men, may endeavour to maintain that the Peruvians had domestic llamas from the beginning. . . . [8.] The bark-cloth of the the Polynesians is another case in point. [9.] Another very strong case is the boomerang of the Australians. This weapon is known to no other race of men-with one doubtful exception. We cannot look on it as a relic of primeval civilization, or it would not now be confined to one race only. The Australians cannot have learnt it from any civilized visitors for the same reason. It is, therefore, as it seems to me, exactly the case we want, and a clear proof of a step in advance, a small one if you like, but still a step made by a people whom Archbishop Whately would certainly admit to be true savages."

26. But now having got back to the boomerang and "exactly the case we want," according to Sir John Lubbock, let us consider what is the true value of all those quasi facts, or instances of savage advancement. The proposition Sir John Lubbock had to establish is, that savages can civilize themselves, or, as he says, have actually made some steps towards improvement without instruction or example from higher races, ab extra. Now let us go over his examples and arguments in support of this. Their utter weakness will be manifest already to all who read this paper, merely from the words I have put in italics :

(1.) The Australians of Port Essington buy improved canoes from the Malays; therefore they have advanced of themselves! (2.) The Andamans have recently introduced outriggers. "Recently,"-after I know not how many millions of years of prior existence, Sir John Lubbock's philosophy would assign to

them. But he does not say they have introduced outriggers before they had been visited again and again by races superior to themselves.

(3.) So the Bachapins had "just commenced" working iron. He does not tell us if without instruction; though

(4.) He does distinctly say the Wajiji had "recently learned to make brass."

(5.) I do not see the force of the statement as to the Queen's "largest morai" in Tahiti; and the " very recent abandonment of cannibalism" is left also unexplained. We may remember, however, recent instances in New Zealand, after cannibalism as we had imagined had been "abandoned," of its being reverted to upon occasion with considerable gusto. And as human flesh is not wholesome food, and "does not agree" with those who eat it, I am not surprised to find its consumption may vary and be easily given up for a time; but this can scarcely be regarded as any proof of a decided step from savagery.

(6.) "There are certain facts which speak for themselves. Some of the North American tribes cultivated the maize. Now the maize is a North American plant; and we have here, therefore, clear evidence of a step in advance made by these tribes." I would not weaken this easy-going argument by the least modification of the words. But, suppose we put the same facts, granting them, in this way-The maize is a North American plant ;-The first wanderers on American soil, accustomed to the cultivation of other cereals, found the maize indigenous and cultivated it ;-Some of the descendants of these wanderers retained this knowledge and habit ;Others driven away to the forest or less genial regions, and subsisting chiefly by the chase, had no means of continuing the cultivation of the maize, and after a time lost the memory of its usefulness.— Is not this the more natural supposition, or, to say the least, is not the one argument as good as the other? Nay, as the maize is a North American plant," and if advancement among savages is the rule, why should not all the North American tribes have cultivated it? Sir John does not hazard a reason. He does not seem even to have thought of this!

(7.) "The Peruvians had domesticated the llama." Let me ask, is not the llama "domestic " by nature? Has any wild animal ever been domesticated? * It is very questionable; and this is a point Sir John Lubbock does not discuss. I have omitted an admission which he here imagines the deceased Archbishop of Dublin would make, saying, he "is sure" that the Archbishop would have made it! I can only say I am not sure; and that I must deprecate discussing in this way, ad libitum, the imputed opinions of a great thinker not now alive!

* Vide Journ. of Trans. of Vict. Inst., vol. i. p. 410.

(8.) Then as to the bark-cloth of the Polynesians, I find no argument to answer. It is not even asserted to be a "recent invention of the modern Polynesians. May it not be a traditional art-relic of their forefathers, and tell the other way?

up

(9.) And, once more, as to the boomerang. "We cannot " (says Sir John) "look on it as a relic of primeval civilization, or it would not now be confined to one race only." This argument betrays the source of all Sir John Lubbock's false reasoning throughout. By "civilization" he only conceives "material civilization";—he evidently imagines that those who believe that man must have been created in an elevated condition, right" and very good, also think he was created with a knowledge of all the arts and sciences ! In fact he has not only been crushing a deceased logician of eminence, but belabouring a huge man of straw! It is almost the story of Don Quixote's windmills and wine-bags over again! The least amount of calmness and common sense dispels the illusions. As already argued (§ 13), the present Australian savages are incapable of inventing the boomerang. According to Sir John it has been invented by previous Australian aborigines. Surely the inevitable ergo is, that the ancestors of the present aborigines were superior to them. And if so, the Australian savages, as we now know them, are a "degraded" race. If there be another possible conclusion, I shall be glad if Sir John Lubbock will be good enough to state it.

27. Among the strong points he advances in support of his second proposition, that there are traces of original barbarism among the more civilized races, is the existence of "the traces of a stone age even in Palestine and in Syria, Egypt and India." But, granting this, there is the simple explanation, that to extract metals from the ore is not an obvious art or easy process, whereas stones are everywhere ready and at hand, and are easily converted into instruments by chipping and rubbing. It is most natural, therefore," especially for purposes of warfare, that slings and stones should have preceded bows and arrows, the long-bow the cross-bow, and the cross-bow the musket and rifle. But men might be quite as elevated morally and mentally while using the sling or the bow, as afterwards when using fire-arms. If "civilization" merely meant the outward development of all arts and sciences, it would be downright madness to apply the word to the primitive races of mankind. But that is not its meaning. It primarily and properly signifies an enlightened mental condition and pure morals or "good manners among mankind.

28. Sir John Lubbock to some extent seems to feel this, for he next discusses the estimate of female virtue and the ideas of

marriage among savages. I do not follow his arguments, however,