ETHNOLOGY, ETC., OF CHINA. 201 
tome. One speaker, talking of what I said with regard to the 
doctrine of Buddhism, namely, that all things come from nothing 
and return to nothing, is well aware from his reading that the 
Indians, the Brahmins, the Chinese, and the Singalese all give 
different accounts of what the doctrines of Buddha were, and I 
observe that this speaker when remarking on those notes of mine 
did not actually say what the doctrine of Buddha was, so that 
one individual sets up one conjecture in the place of another, an 
observation which applies to those I have taken my remarks from. 
Then about the Yuechi. I look to my paper and see that I did not 
say anything about their having been aborigines; but in another part 
of my paper I see the word “aborigines” is mentioned, not as indi- 
cating a people so called, or as the actual original people of that place 
occupied by them, but as indicating that we have no history of any 
race preceding them. In a footnote I quote from Hale’s Chron- 
ology, p. 174. I allude, rather vaguely, to a subject in itself 
so extensive that I really am afraid to make more than a passing 
allusion to it, namely, a division of the human race as handed down 
to us in history, sacred and profane, into historical and non-historical 
races. Many of the tribes I have mentioned in my paper belong, 
I believe, to the non-historical races. I invite your attention to the 
few notes relating to this point which I haye inserted at the foot of 
page 174, and those who have done me the honour of being present on 
this occasion, and are interested in the subject to which I have so 
briefly alluded, will have an opportunity of investigating it for 
themselves. It is too long to be entered on here. In reference to 
the remark made with regard to my making use of the word “ Chin- 
tan,” and the question asked regarding it, my authority is Williams. 
With regard to Chinapati, the position of which, as I remarked, is 
close to the river Beas, as far as I am aware I make no allusion to the 
actual date when it was named. I merely mention the particular 
with regard to it having been named. Then, in regard to the empire 
of Kanishka, I have carefully examined the data on which I have 
based my remarks, and the period stated therein is quoted verbatim 
from the work consulted by me in the Royal Institution. I can 
only again refer, as perhaps offering some interpretation of these 
remarks, to the notes which I have inserted at page 174. I was asked 
on what authority I made the remark on the similarity of customs 
between China and Egypt. In the notes which I have given in the 
shape of an appendix to my paper various points are given, and 
quoted verbatim, that will probably further elucidate the subject, 
VOL. XXIII. [2 
