14. Here is another passage of arms between the living knight and the eminent but deceased logician. Sir John says:

"In another passage, Archbishop Whately quotes with approbation a passage from President Smith, of the college of New Jersey, who says that man, 'cast out an orphan of nature, naked and helpless, into the savage forest, must have perished before he could have learned how to supply his most immediate and urgent wants. Suppose him to have been created, or to have started into being, one knows not how, in the full strength of his bodily powers, how long must it have been before he could have known the proper use of his limbs, or how to apply them to climb the tree,' &c., &c. Exactly the same, however, [adds Sir John] might be said of the gorilla or the chimpanzee, which certainly are not the degraded descendants of civilized ancestors."

15. Now here we have a questionable and carelessly constructed argument quoted at third hand, but to say the least, quite as questionably and carelessly answered. One can gather the meaning of the argument quoted by the late Archbishop, even as it is cited by Sir John Lubbock. But it contains an odd mixture of ideas. If we believe man to have been created, then we should not speak of him as "starting into being, one knows not how." That is the language of the other side; and no end of absurdities may follow the imaginary deductions from such an unrealized conception. If such language were advanced as regards anything else than modern science, it would be characterized as downright nonsense. Again, if the first man was created" in the full strength of his bodily powers," he would also-unless he was merely an idiot, or some nondescript, nonintelligent being, with neither the reason of a man nor the instinct of a brute-have soon "known the proper use of his limbs." It is the easiest thing in the world to select such illconceived arguments as these, culled from an author who is out of the way and cannot explain them, in order to show how inconclusive they are. But in fact Sir John Lubbock actually quotes these lame arguments in order to borrow them, and he even adds to their lameness. He thinks it enough to argue in reply, Exactly the same, however, might be said of the gorilla or the chimpanzee, which certainly are not the degraded descendants of civilized ancestors." The "same" might, indeed, " be said," but could only be foolishly said, of men and monkeys. But no man who claims to be rational is entitled to say that even a gorilla or chimpanzee may have "started into being one knows not how." It would be far less irrational to conceive that a stone or any other inanimate thing could have started into being without a Creator,-for that is the meaning of the phrase, “one

knows not how." Only crass ignorance or rank superstition could ever entertain such a notion-it is worthy only of the old idolators of stocks and stones! Reasoning and enlightened man has always known that all the phenomena of nature must have had an uncaused First Cause. To go back from that, is to take the first step downwards towards ignorant savagery. But when we perceive that there must have been a first creation of all things by an invisible and eternal Deity, then all these conjectural difficulties vanish. Admit creation and Deity, however, and the "same things" cannot with any truth be said of the supposed first man and the first gorilla. Low in the animal scale as the gorilla is, it still has-like all other animals-what we call " instinct," by which it is enabled to live and supply its own wants. It is even "perfect" in its way, and it does not lose its instinct, though it does not acquire any others or advance. Man is not in the least like this. And if he is supposed, for argument's sake, to have been created in a low and savage condition, with little or no enlightenment or rational understanding -which is what the late Archbishop and President Smith were arguing, then, not having the instinct of an animal, "if cast out helpless and naked," thus, "into the savage forest, he must doubtless have perished before he could have learned to supply his most immediate and urgent wants." But for the sake of argument let us even suppose that man in such circumstances might have survived, and then consider, what are the facts or other grounds for supposing he could have elevated himself and emerged from such an abject condition.

16. I now propose to state these facts and arguments as advanced by Sir John Lubbock. When his Paper was announced I made a point of being present in the Ethnological Society when it was read; and being then invited by the President, Mr. Crawfurd, to speak, I felt obliged to tell the author that 1 was disappointed he had not attempted to answer my arguments; and I then pledged myself to select his strongest points and reply to them in writing, and more fully than I could then do viva voce. I then observed, that in such a large question it was of no practical use for him or for me to go wandering over the whole history of the world, past and present, to gather a few doubtful facts here and there, that might serve to support our own views, and to disregard all other facts that would tell in a different direction, or-as he had also done-to ignore all the strongest arguments he had heard advanced upon the other side.

17. Sir John Lubbock says:—

"Firstly, I will endeavour to show that there are indications of progress

even among savages;

"Secondly, that among the most civilized nations there are traces of original barbarism.”

But before proceeding to attempt to establish either of these propositions, he introduces some illustrations which he thinks scrve to support another proposition which he assumes to be true; namely, that it is improbable that any race of men would be likely to abandon or forget pursuits or arts which they or their ancestors once found useful or had known. Now I venture to think that that proposition is very far from undeniable; but, even granting it, I think we shall find, that the illustrations given by Sir John do not support it.

"The Archbishop supposes that men were, from the beginning, herdsmen and cultivators, but we know the Australians, North and South Americans, and several other more or less savage races, living in countries eminently suited to our domestic animals and to the cultivation of cereals, were yet entirely ignorant both of the one and the other."

Then he argues that

"Were the present colonists of America or Australia to fall into such a state of barbarism, we should still find in those countries herds of wild cattle descended from those imported; and even if these were exterminated, still we should find their remains, whereas we know that not a single bone of the ox or of the domestic sheep has been found either in Australia* or in America."

The confusion of thought here is literally amazing. He speaks of the present colonists, but evidently of future herds of wild cattle; and while he uses the words that these "wild cattle" would be descendants from tame ones imported," he forgets that all his argument topples down, if we but suppose the first civilized colonists to degenerate before such cattle. were imported into the country. He seems to have no idea of colonization except of some Utopian kind, in which the colonists would always be able to take and always take with them the domestic animals and cereals to which they had been accus

But let me ask, are there any sedimentary strata in Australia in which any bones whatever have been found? (Vide Mr. Hopkins's paper, Journ. of Trans. of Vict. Inst., vol. ii. p. 11.) And mark, Sir John argues here that this negative evidence is conclusive. The bones of these animals have not been found; ergo, they never existed there. And yet he, Sir Charles Lyell, and Mr. Darwin, in the absence of any bones of the "missing link," between man and apes, notwithstanding argue that as they may be found, so they believe in their probable existence!!

tomed. It might of course be very desirable to have such systematic colonization, in which the colonists would take with them every art and industry and all their domestic animals and plants to some other clime; but the thing we might almost say has never happened! "Colonists," moreover, did not originally migrate per saltum, or sail as now, from the north temperate to the south temperate zone. In the absence of the art of navigation, they went naturally by slow degrees farther and farther south; they had to pass through the tropics; and the introduction of cereals and domestic animals eminently suited for Australia, and even for North as well as South America, was not only as a matter of fact, but (as far as we know) necessarily gradual and subsequent to the original human colonization. But "colonization "itself is not the original kind of migration by which we can suppose the primitive men were dispersed over the face of the earth. Colonization, so to say, is a civilized mode of "dispersion"; but even to accomplish it, we know that explorers must go first, and sometimes no "colonists" ever follow. But even when they do, we also know - especially the more distant the colony-that with all our modern appliances for transport, which no ancient people could possibly have possessed, the cereals and domestic animals of the mother-country are only by very slow degrees introduced, with more or less success, and sometimes very long after the colonization has taken place.

19. Sir John goes on:

"The same argument applies to the horse, as the first horse of South America does not belong to the domestic race."

What the precise intended value of the word "as" is, which I have italicised in this quotation, I confess I cannot perceive. Whately, could he now speak, would I think easily show that it involves a non sequitur, even were Sir John right in his "fact" as to the horse of the Pampas. But I believe he is egregiously wrong, and at issue with all scientific men. Let me contrast both his facts and arguments with a citation from the admirable work of the late Professor Waitz of Marburg :

"A nomadic pastoral life cannot be considered as an advance compared with a fishing or hunting life. The Hottentots were in possession of numerous flocks and herds when the Europeans first visited their country; and the Kaffirs are a pastoral people to this day. Cattle-breeding does not necessarily lead to a settled life, though it is compatible with it, and renders it more secure if combined with agriculture. It is on this combination that progressive civilization depends; separately they effect but little. Here it may be right to mention that in the whole of America, Peru alone, at an early period, had domesticated animals, namely, the llama

and alpaca, whilst of edible plants it possessed the potato and the quinoa. With the exception of Peru, pastoral life could not prevail in the New World, the want of which, as Humboldt has shown, exercised a decisive influence on the civilization of the inhabitants. The dog was much used as a beast of burden, and its influence on the mode of life of the natives was unimportant. Even the horse, which the Europeans introduced into the Northern and Southern Continent, has proved ineffectual in America as a means of civilization; showing plainly that the effect produced by the most important domestic animals depends on the mode of life and the degree of cultivation which the people had then already acquired. The buffalo chase without the horse must be more difficult and less productive, as the buffaloes are gregarious, and swiftness is more requisite than craft. Little apt for breeding in general, the American has not used the horse for such a purpose: he catches it according to his requirements, so that this animal merely contributed in inducing him to continue a hunting life."*

20. As a translation of Professor Waitz's valuable work on Anthropology was published in London in 1863, and Sir John Lubbock's essay was written in 1867, I cannot account for his ignoring such writing as this, and such an author, andchoosing a work of Dr. Whately's to which to reply. I have never seen Dr. Whately's book, and in all the discussions on this subject in which I have taken part from 1863, I never even heard Whately's name once mentioned till Sir John Lubbock exhumed him for his antagonist. The study of anthropology can scarcely be said to have existed when Dr. Whately wrote, compared with what it has since become; and I find from Sir John Lubbock's Paper that the late Archbishop's arguments only occur in some incidental chapters in a work on Political Economy!

21. Had Sir John been able to show that "a single bone of the horse" had been discovered in South America in strata of greater antiquity than its discovery by Columbus, he then might have upset the facts and arguments of the distinguished Marburg Professor of Philosophy. But he apparently admits that "not a single bone has been found"; although he tags on to this, the irrelevant and erroneous statement, preceded by the equally irrelevant "as," that the "first horse of South America does not belong to the domestic race"!

22. Though it lengthens this paper, I must make allusion to one or two other of Sir John Lubbock's illustrations. He says:

66

Moreover, this argument applies to several other arts and instruments. I will mention only two, though several others might be brought forward.

* Waitz: Introd. to Anthrop., pp. 337, 338. (London: Longmans, 1863.