36 



audience, and on such an occasion. You con- 

 fess yourself a sceptic, and that you have not 

 been able to arrive at any clear or distinct con- 

 clusion, <c whether our species owes its origin to 

 " a single pair of human beings."* This ques- 

 tion you represent, as entirely unimportant, and 

 on e which zoology does not possess the means 

 " of solving." On these grounds, you were not 

 called upon to introduce it to the notice of your 

 pupils, either by its connexion with your pro- 

 fession, or by the means which you possessed 

 of imparting to them any useful information. 

 The conclusion which I draw is this, the mere 

 vanity of displaying your sceptical opinions, 

 has rendered you indifferent to the effect which 

 they may produce on the morals and happiness 

 of those who attend on your lectures. 



I remain, Sir, &c. 



P.S. At page 2149, 254, you state it as an in- 

 surmountable objection to the Mosaic account of 

 the creation that it represents all the different 

 kinds of animals, as issuing originally from one 

 and the same quarter of the world. " How 

 " could the Polar bear have traversed the Torrid 

 " Zone, &c. ?" Now, with very little alteration, 

 you may apply the same question to the different 

 varieties, or, as I should say, nations of men 

 " How could the inhabitants of Greenland live 

 " amidst the burning wilds of Africa ?" If you 

 admit that the American, Mongolian, Ethiopian, 

 and Malay varieties originally came from the 

 centre of Asia, why should you question the 

 same fact with respect to the brute creation? 

 f P, 271. 



