TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 119 



emerge from tte savage state, liow do we know that this may not have heen through 

 the aid of some strangers coming among them — like the Manco-Capac of Pern — 

 from some more civilized country, perhaps long hefore the days of Colimihus ? " 

 Supposing, however, for a moment, and for the sake of argument, that the Man- 

 dans, or anj^ other race, were originally savages and had civilized themselves, it 

 would still be manifestly, from the very nature of the case, impossible to bring 

 forward the kind of evidence demanded by Dr. Whately. No doubt he " may con- 

 fidently aifirm that we find no one recorded instance of a tribe of savages, properly 

 so styled, rising into a civilized state without instruction and assistance from people 

 already civilized." Starting vsdth the proviso that savages, properly so styled, are 

 ignorant of letters, and laying it down as a condition that no ci^dlized example 

 should be placed before them, the existence of any such record is an impossibility ; 

 its very existence woidd destroy its value. In another passage Archbishop Whately 

 says, indeed, " If man generally, or some particular race, be capable of self-civi- 

 lization, in either case it may be expected that some record, or tradition, or monu- 

 ment, of the actual occurrence of such an event should be found." So far from 

 this, the existence of any such record would, according to the very hypothesis 

 itself, be impossible. Traditions are shortlived and untrustworthy. A " monument" 

 which could prove the actual occuiTence of a race capable of self-civilization, I 

 confess myself unable to imagine. What kind of a monument would the Arch- 

 bishop accept as proving that the people which made it had been originally savage P 

 that they had raised themselves, and had never been influenced by strangers of a 

 superior race ? Evidently the word " monument " in the above passage was used 

 only to round ofi" the sentence. But, says Archbishop Whately, "We have ac- 

 counts of various savage tribes, in different parts of the globe, who have been 

 visited from time to time at considerable inters^als, but have had no settled inter- 

 course with civilized people, and who appear to continue, as far as can be ascer- 

 tained, in the same uncultivated condition;" and he adduces one case, that of the 

 New Zealanders, who " seem to have been in quite as advanced a state when Tasman 

 discovered the country in 1642, as they were when Cook visited it 127 years after." 

 We have been accustomed to see around us an improvement so rapid that we 

 forget how short a period a centm-y is in the history of the human race. Even 

 taking the ordinary chronology, it is evident that if in 6000 years a given race has 

 only progressed from a state of utter savagery to the condition of the Australian, 

 we could not expect to find much change in one more century. Many a fishing 

 village, even on our own coast, is in veiy neai'lj- the same condition as it was 127 

 years ago. Moreover, I might fairly answer that according to Whately's own de- 

 finition of a savage state the New Zealanders woidd certainly be excluded. They 

 cultivated the ground, they had domestic animals, they constructed elaborate for- 

 tifications, and made excellent canoes, and were certainly not in a state of utter 

 barbarism. Or I might argue that a short visit, like that of Tasman, could give little 

 insight into the true condition of a people. I am, however, the less disposed to 

 question the statement made by Archbishop Whately, because the fact that many 

 races are now practically stationary is in reality an argument against the theory of 

 degradation and not against that of progress. Civilized races, say we, are the de- 

 scendants of races which have risen from a state of barbarism. On the contrarv, 

 argue our opponents, savages are the descendants of civilized races, and have sunk 

 to their present condition. But Archbishop Whately admits that the civilized 

 races are still rising, while the savages are now stationary ; and, oddly enough, 

 seems to regard this as an argument in support of the very untenable proposition, 

 that the difference between the two is due not to the progress of the one set of 

 races, a progress which every one admits, but to the degradation of those whom he 

 himself maintains to be stationaiy. The delusion is natural, and like that which 

 every one must have sometimes experienced in looking out of a train in motion, 

 when the woods and fields seem to be flying from us, whereas we know that in 

 reality we are moving and they are stationary. But it is argued, " If man, 

 when first created, was left, like the brutes, to the unaided exercise of those 

 natural powers of body and mind which are common to the European and to the 

 New Hollander, how comes it that the European is not now in the condition of 

 the New Hollander? " I am indeed stii-prised at such an argument. In the first place, 

 Australia possesses neither cereals nor any animals which can be domesticated with 



