241 
natural processes in certain directions the same conclusions as 
to the Deity that we have reached ourselves, and that the 
short space of 4,000 years is but a crumb in the balance, ’ 
well, then, I must leave it to others, within whose province 
of study it more properly falls, to say how long man has 
existed as man on the earth. 
Tur CHatrmMAn (Mr. D. Howarp, F.1.C.).—We have to thank the author 
‘of the paper for the interesting protest he has offered against the very common, 
and, as I believe, the very mistaken, idea which/is entertained with regard 
to the earliest history of mankind. It certainly does seem strange that, 
after all the centuries of accurate science of which we boast, it should still 
be necessary to reiterate and insist upon the necessity of understanding the 
very first principle of inductive science—that, before an induction can be 
made, there must be an accurate collection and verification of facts, those 
facts being chosen from variants as different as possible, in order to avoid 
the liability of special circumstances detracting from their value, and then put 
together so as to form awhole. The very fact that, as a rule, the theories of 
religious development are based on the assumed condition of the lowest tribe 
of savages, may at once be met by the question Mr. Collins asks, What right 
have we to suppose that the Zulu, the fetish-worshipper, or the Tasmanian 
savage, is the true representative of the earliest state of mankind? No 
doubt, if we wanted to study English history, and were to get hold of a 
west-country peasant or a Cumberland dalesman, we might thus obtain a 
valuable illustration and an interesting example of the Englishman of the 
past; but surely one would expect to learn very little of the bygone 
characteristics of the English race by choosing a London gamin as a 
specimen whereby to illustrate a theory. Thus, even the most enthusiastic 
evolutionist is obliged to bring in the idea of degeneracy to account for a 
good many things he perceives in Nature ; and we constantly find that the 
upholders of the evolution theory are compelled to introduce this element in 
order to explain a great deal they meet with in civilisation. Is it not, 
according to their own theory, most probable that the dominant races are 
those who have best adhered to, and have worked up, the best points of 
their civilisation, while those constitute the lowest races who have left the 
best side of their nature uncultivated ? Therefore, we have a right to contend 
that the lowest type of the human race cannot be a fair specimen of our 
ancestors, and that, if our Norse progenitors had been shown a Tasmanian 
savage as being a fair representative of what their ancestors were, they 
would not have felt at all gratified by the comparison, while, surely, we may 
suppose that those old Norsemen had quite as good an idea of what their 
predecessors were as the modern savant can form, and they certainly did not 
look back upon their ancestors as a degenerate race ; on the contrary, they 
always spoke of them as heroes who had done mighty deeds, and not as a 
VOL. XIX. =) 
