but who possesses language, to a deaf and dumb school,) I saw very little of the deaf and dumb, and I gradually got into the habit of speaking more and better.

"The reason why I do not speak to every one is, simply, that every one cannot understand me, and I am reluctant to give people the trouble of trying to understand. Being deaf, I cannot always pitch my voice at the right tone with reference to surrounding noises. I mispronounce some words, and have little skill in modulation; hence I cannot expect to be immediately understood, except for single words or common expressions; but I infinitely prefer being with people who can understand me, and I have not the smallest hesitation or reluctance in speaking to them, or to my servants, or others to whom I do not mind giving the trouble of finding out what I say. Most people understand me readily enough, and after a few days' acquaintance and practice find it hard to believe they ever could not understand me.

"Of course I am silent in company; the reason being, simply, that I cannot hold by the thread of the conversation going round. If I do get hold of it now and then, I have no hesitation in saying anything I wish; but of course the thread drops off again directly, unless, indeed, there is some one by who takes the great trouble to repeat to me on his fingers or by writing the main points of the conversation as it goes on.

"I never think of using signs, or of speaking on my fingers, except to persons deaf and dumb. In fact, I hardly ever meet with a hearing person, other than a teacher of the deaf and dumb, who can read spelling or understand signs.

"It is much more difficult to read spelling than to spell. I was much astonished at the statement in the paper that Mrs. Tonna always spelt on her fingers, and did not speak. If the statement rests only on the words quoted, 'We never divided the words, &c.,' I should be inclined to doubt whether the 'we' is not here exclusive of Mrs. Tonna herself. It would be quite true for one of my sisters to say, 'We never divided the words, &c., in talking to Arthur;' but not one of my family or friends would understand me if I spelt a sentence on my fingers to them, unless I did it with most emphatic slowness.

“To sum up; although I do not speak to every one, and am silent in mixed or large companies, it does not arise from any kind of moral disability' or 'disinclination,' such as Dr. Kitto appears to have laboured under, but from reasons easily understood, and of which I feel quite certain.

"I started by saying that I did not think the case of the deaf and dumb strengthened the main argument of the paper; therefore, my experiences, which differ from those brought forward, must be equally immaterial to it.

"The conclusions of the paper have my sympathy, although I remember reading a very ingenious argument to prove that speech had its origin from men trying to imitate the sounds of nature and of animals, the

mitation standing for the name of the object. It is easy to see how, from these first simple sounds, which a savage might make as naturally as gesticulation, a language might be elaborated; at least there are no such great difficulties as lie in the way of the transmutation of an ape into a man. I thought I had read the theory in Goguet's Origin of Laws, but I cannot now find it in that book.

"Believe me ever faithfully yours,

"A. H. BATHER.

"JAMES REDDIE, Esq."

66

I consider, Sir, that this is an important communication; and with reference to Mr. Bather's want of any disinclination to speak, such as was experienced by Dr. Kitto, I think it may be explained thus. Having as a child only heard up to four years old, he would not be afterwards so conscious of the marked difference between his condition as a person who once had heard, and one who does not now hear; which would probably be acutely felt in the case of Dr. Kitto and by Charlotte Elizabeth." Mr. Bather's case also is more nearly analogous to that of those who are deaf-mutes from their birth, and who consequently never heard at all. And here lies, I think, the great weakness of Professor Young's argument. He has himself slightly noticed it,— but I think it ought not to be noticed merely incidentally, for it is the most important point of all,-namely, that the theory is only good if applied to a community of deaf people! The argument is founded upon only two cases, and those are of people who did not hear. They, of course, could have no pleasure in speaking, and therefore would not use speech, unless convinced of the usefulness of speaking. I may observe, that although Mr. Bather does not hesitate to speak, yet he speaks in an awkward monotone, and one requires to get accustomed to his imperfect articulation to understand him readily. I am sorry I have not got from him an explanation of one point, where his letter would seem to be discordant with Professor Young's statement, that all those people who cannot hear, may yet be taught to articulate perfectly. But Professor Young has also not told us whether congenital deaf-mutes are disinclined to use that power of speaking which, he tells us, they all may acquire. With reference to the question whether speech could be invented from imitating sounds in nature, I must say, (if man had not a gift of speech originally, and the ideas that come with the power of speaking,) it appears to me that he would scarcely have been able to express with his hands what is meant by such gestures as those which Professor Young has exhibited. But, at any rate, he could surely do quite as much in making signs of various kinds with his tongue, when he had the power of uttering sounds, as he could by merely moving his hands. And people who are not deaf cannot help being aware of their power of vocal utterance, because even children from their birth utter sounds naturally, and man hears every variety of sound in nature all around him, especially the cries of birds and beasts, which he would naturally imitate. I must also say, with reference to those gesturesigns which Professor Young exhibited, that I can scarcely believe that a

single one of them would be intelligible to any person, unless taught their meaning by means of spoken language. Nine-tenths of the gesticulations which Professor Young exhibited before us appeared to me to be rather speech interpreted by signs, than signs significant in themselves; and but for his verbal explanations, I confess I should not have understood their meaning in the least. There is a curious passage in one of Montaigne's Essays, perhaps bearing on the Professor's side, with which I shall conclude. Montaigne considered that beasts may speak, for all we can tell, because, he observes, we can say all we have to say by signs. Then he goes on:-"Quoi des mains? Nos requerons, nous promettons, appellons, congedions, menaceons, prions, supplions, nions, refusons, interrogeons, admirons, nombrons, confessons, repentons, craignons, vergoignons, doubtons, instruisons, commandons, absolvons, injurions, mesprisons, desfions, despitons, flattons, applaudissons, benissons, humilions, mocquons, reconcilions, recommendons, festoyons, rejouissons, complaignons, attristons, descomfortons, desesperons, estonnons, escrions, taisons, et quoi non?"

There we have the same idea as in the paper; but I must add that I do not understand how any savage, who only knew gesture-language, could ever have such ideas at all, or understand one half of the things signified by those words, and the fine shades of thought they often express.

Rev. Dr. IRONS.-I think we are scarcely doing justice to the paper of Professor Young, if we forget he began by telling us he could pretend to no demonstration in such a matter. He merely endeavoured to accumulate all the probabilities of the case; and with respect to those examples of deaf-mutes, they were by no means all his argument, they were only illustrations which he introduced, like the mythical savage with whom he could communicate, who was not deaf; and I think without at all proving his point, which he never attempted, he suggested the great probability of the difficulty of originating a language, if man had been created a mute savage. And when Mr. Warington affirms that there is a probability, if man was created in a civilized condition, that he would form a language for himself, I think he is bound, in fairness to Professor Young, to show how he could meet the dilemma which the Professor put before us, that civilization implies language, as much as language implies civilization. Let us meet the issue fairly, and see whether there is a probability, or an improbability, of savages inventing speech. It occurs to me that the illustrations drawn by Mr. Warington do not apply to the Professor's argument, which was put forward to meet the idea of man being a monkey previously, and gradually becoming man. The primitive men were said to be of the lowest type, and the Fiji Islanders were particularly mentioned as an instance. Now they have no civilization surrounding them to suggest the thoughts like those which might be suggested to civilized mutes by what they see. The very language originating thought and producing high desires could not have been excited if these mutes had been in the position of the Fiji Islanders, or of a still lower class, namely, a people just risen above the monkey.

Rev. Dr. THORNTON.-At the risk of being called to order, I shall first, Sir,

return you my thanks, and I think I may say those of all present (hear, hear,) for your very able and lucid introductory remarks. Everybody must be glad to be told that he may be a Christian and a man of science at the same time; and that if he reads the Bible, he need not fling away science, or if he studies science he need not fling away the Bible. (Hear, hear.) I beg also to offer a few remarks on the paper of Professor Young; in doing which, I shall not detain you long.-I would say to the learned Professor, that I listened to his paper with interest; and if I take the liberty of criticising it, it is not because I deny his facts, or disagree with his conclusion. I think he has stated his argument from probability very clearly. He says it is probable that man would not have supplied a spoken language for himself out of his own powers; therefore it must have been given him, as he has it, from above. I believe that it was given him from above; but not for this reason; and we must be careful, while defending a truth, to defend it with correct arguments; for a weak argument is an evil; and therefore, if we bring forward a probability which will not hold water, we are really doing harm to truth. I would suggest to the Professor, whether those signs, which he so clearly put before us, are really capable of forming a language? I fail to see in them a power of representing complicated objects. I can understand their representing the sun, or the moon, or the stars; but how represent a special thought, or even a particular animal by a sign of that kind? It is there that articulation steps in. A man has a certain feeling or emotion, for instance; he strives to express it, and utters a sound; but his utterances are inarticulate. What are they? Sounds not yet reduced to law. When they are reduced to law, they are articulate. There is no more inarticulate sound than "Boo;" but that in Greek has the meaning of "bull." There is "O" inarticulate, but it becomes an articulate sound. The original words of human speech were inarticulate sounds, and they were forced by the energy of man's nature, into something like order and articulate condition. I therefore should say, with all due deference to the arguments that Professor Young has placed before us, that primeval language-speaking of course without consideration of what we know from revelation-primeval language would be a sort of compound of gesture and half-articulate sound;-gesture to express certain ideas and emotions, and sound to express others. One might multiply instances; but to select one. In Hebrew, if the lion is represented, I find the word is the expressive sound ari; and in Coptic the Egyptian represents the same animal by moui. I find in all such names, in the words employed to express both emotions and individual objects, a transition from the inarticulate to the articulate states of sounds; and therefore I suggest, with all due deference to the Professor, that his theory has only given us half the truth. Is there not a probability, on the other side, that man would invent an articulate language? Many may remember the sceptical question asked by Tindal in his Christianity as Old as the Creation, relative to the miracle of Balaam's ass, how many ideas the ass had ?-and how Waterland points out, in answer, that not a syllable is mentioned about ideas; it is merely said that the ass spoke; and he humorously adds that it probably had as many ideas

U

as asses commonly have,-the number of which, Mr. Tindal might reckon up for himself at his leisure. Now, I do not wish man to be considered as being in the position of Balaam's ass, uttering sounds without corresponding ideas. There is a current of ideas which must pass through the mind of every man, civilized or savage; and the natural striving of his mental being will be to express those sounds in some way, partly by gesture and partly by sounds, varying from the merely inarticulate to those developed as in the Sanskrit and our own language.

The CHAIRMAN.-I shall now call upon Professor Young to reply to the observations made, though perhaps I may say that I agree with his paper, and think he has most logically carried out all that he attempted to set before us ; a matter which I think in some of the replies has been lost sight of. Professor Young's paper altogether proceeds as an answer to a certain hypothesis which has been brought strongly forward,-namely, that man is derived from the monkey, from the lower orders of creation, and in that position he has invented language. As I understand Professor Young's argument (and he will correct me if I am wrong), he proceeds to answer that hypothesis-his argument is altogether founded upon that ;—and it is no answer to him to state what man would do in a civilized state, or if created in that state; for it does not touch his hypothesis. His argument is, if man was in such a low position as that, he would take that which is natural and not artificial. He maintains that spoken language is as arbitrary in its character as the signs which the deaf and dumb acquire in the finger alphabet. He shows us that the deaf and dumb possess one language with people who speak, a gesture-language, which would be sufficient for uncivilized man, and that having a natural language, man would not be forced to invent an artificial one. And I think all the arguments of the paper would stand in all their strength if he omitted everything with regard to the deaf and dumb. I do not think that altogether the case of Mr. Reddie's friend so far contradicts Professor Young's examples. It depends upon the different circumstances in which the deaf and dumb person is placed. This deaf and dumb gentleman I suppose was in an educated family, and he found it convenient to keep up the language he possessed, rather than give to others the pain of spelling out their words; and I can easily conceive that as a child brought up that way, he was forced by a kind of necessity to use language, however disagreeable at the time. Dr. Kitto recovered his language when forced upon him by a similar necessity, and I think the same kind of necessity which caused Dr. Kitto to recover his language would have also caused Mr. Reddie's example to do the same.

Professor YOUNG.-Mr. Vice-President, you have anticipated a good deal of what I should say in reply on this subject. With reference to Mr. Warington's observations, I have little to say, because he has not kept to the hypothesis on which I started. He instances a case of man in a civilized state, who had got very considerably in advance and ahead of the people I had constructed my observations upon, and I have nothing to say to that. As to the interesting letter that Mr. Reddie has read from this gentleman who became deaf so young, that is one instance in opposition to those two