140 REPORT — 1869. 



innocent, and yet more criminal than civilized races ; thej are by no means in the 

 lowest possible moral condition, nor do they rise to the higher virtues. 



In my previous paper I laid much stress on the fact that even in the most civi- 

 lized nations we iind traces of early barbarism. The Duke maintains, on the con- 

 trary, that these traces afford no proof, or even presumption, that barbarism was 

 the primeval condition of man ; he urges that all such customs may have been, 

 not primeval, but medieval ; and he continues — " Yet this assumption runs 

 through all Sir J. Lubbock's arguments. Wherever a brutal or savage custom 

 prevails, it is regarded as a sample of the original condition of mankind. And 

 this in the teeth of facts which prove that many of such customs not only may 

 have been, but must have been, the result of corruption." 



Fortunately, it is unnecessary for me to defend myself against this criticism, 

 because in the very next sentence the Duke directly contradicts himself, and shows 

 that I have not done that of which he accuses me. He continues his argument 

 thus : — " Take cannibalism as one of these. Sir J. Lubbock seems to admit that 

 this loathsome practice was not primeval." Thus, by way of proof that 1 regard 

 all brutal customs as primeval, he states, and correctly states, that I do not regard 

 cannibalism as primeval. 



The Duke refers particularly to the practice of Bride-catching, whieh he states 

 " cannot possibly have been primeval."' He omits, however, to explain why not; 

 and, of course, assuming the word " primeval" to cover a period of some length. 

 Mr. M'Lennan has, I think, brought forward strong reasons for considering 

 Bride-catching to have been a primeval cuistom. As the Duke correctly observes, 

 I laid some stress on this custom, and am sorry that his Grace here meets me with 

 a mere contradiction, instead of an argument. It may perhaps, however, be as 

 well to state emphatically that all brutal customs are not, in my opinion, primeval. 

 Human sacrifices, for instance, were, I think, certainly not so. 



My argument, however, was that there is a definite sequence of habits and ideas ; 

 that certain customs (some brutal, others not so) which we find lingering on in 

 civilized communities, are a page of past history, and tell a tale of former bar- 

 barism, rather on account of theii- simplicity than of their brutality, though many 

 of them are brutal enough. 



No one surely would go back from letter-writing to the use of the quippu or 

 hieroglyphics ; no one would abandon the fire-drill and obtain fire by hand- 

 tricrion. 



Believing that the primitive condition of man was one of civilization, the 

 Duke accounts for the existence of savages by the remark that they are " mere 

 outcasts of the human race," descendants of weak tribes which were " driven to 

 the woods and rocks." But until the historical period these "mere outcasts" 

 occupied almost the whole of North and South America, all Northern Europe, the 

 greater part of Africa, the great continent of Australia, a large part of Asia, and 

 the beautiful islands of the Pacific. Moreover, until modified by man the great 

 continents were either in the condition of open plains, such as heaths, downs, 

 prairies, and tundras, or they were mere " woods and rocks." Now everything 

 tends to show that mere woods and rocks exercised on the whole a favourable 

 influence. Inhabitants of great plains rarely rose beyond the pastoral stage. 

 In America the most advanced civilization was attained, not by the occupants of 

 the fertile valleys, not along the banks of the Mississippi or the Amazon, but 

 among the rocks and the woods of Mexico and Peru. 



Scotland itself is a brilliant proof that woods and rocks are compatible with a 

 high state of ci\"ilization. My idea of the manner in which, and the causes owing 

 to which, man spread over the earth, is very diflerent from that of the Duke. He 

 evidently supposes that new countries have been occupied by weaker races, driven 

 there by more powerful tribes. This I believe to be an entirely erroneous notion. 

 Take for instance our own island. We are sometimes told that the Celts were 

 driven by the Saxons into Wales and Cornwall. On the contrary, however, we 

 know that Wales and Cornwall were both occupied long before the Saxons landed 

 on our shores. The Celts were not driven away at all, but either destroyed or 

 absorbed. 



The gradual extension of the himian race has not in my opinion been effected by 



