93 



tion. Bring a Fuegian to England, and give him time, and he will talk. Put 

 a monkey under training for any number of years, and he will never evince 

 the slightest capacity for the acquisition of language. 



In a short reply to this opponent, I pointed out the palpable error as to 

 his statement about the Fuegians. In a subsequent letter he alluded to 

 " the immense amount of evidence we possess which proves that many 

 tribes of savages do exist who do not possess articulate speech ; " and 

 supported this statement by a reference to the Veddahs of Ceylon, described 

 in Tylor's " Early History of Mankind." Now, on referring to page 77 

 of this interesting book, I find the paragraph which has misled my oppo- 

 nent, who evidently quotes only as far as suits his purpose, for if he had 

 turned over another leaf, at page 78, he would then have found that Mr. 

 Tylor totally denies the accuracy of the statement that the Veddahs have no 

 language, and does this by combating the very paragraph which my opponent 

 quoted, as will be seen by the following extract : — 



" Mr. Mercer seems to have adopted the common view of foreigners about 

 the Veddahs, but it has happened here, as in many other accounts of savage 

 tribes, that closer acquaintance has shown them to have been wrongly accused. 

 Mr. Bailey, who has had good opportunities of studying them, contradicts 

 their supposed deficiency in language, with the remark that he never knew 

 one of them at a loss for words sufficiently intelligible to convey his meaning, 

 not to his fellows only, but to the Singhalese of the neighbourhood, who are 

 all more or less acquainted with the Veddah patois." 



This question as to whether language is an attribute universally possessed 

 by the human race, is such an important one, as far as the present contro- 

 versy is concerned, that I wished to corroborate my views by an appeal to the 

 distinguished African traveller, the Kev. Dr. Moff'att, whose long residence 

 amongst savage tribes renders his testimony peculiarly valuable, and his 

 opinion is so decided in reference to the particular point we are now 

 discussing, that I think it well to insert his letter. 



" Brixton, June 13th, 1872. 



" Dear Dr. Bateman, — With regard to speech being the dividing point 

 between man and the brute, I perfectly agree with you. This barrier has 

 never been, nor ever can be overleaped, and it appears to me extraordinary 

 that any one can think otherwise. I have had much intercourse with the 

 bushmen in the interior of South Africa, and they may be set down as the 

 lowest grade of humanity in that country. In some respects their language 

 has a resemblance to the clicking language of the Hottentots. When taken 

 into service they readily learn to speak fluently the languages of English, 

 Dutch, and Sechuana. They are certainly the most degraded race to be found 

 in the interior. Villages, folds, or flock, they have none, but move about in 

 search of game, roots, wild honey, and are emphatically children of the desert. 



" Of all the reports I ever heard respecting interior tribes, I never found 

 that the idea was ever entertained that human beings existed that did not 

 possess a language. 



" By-and-by, when Dr. Livingstone shall arrive among us, he will no 

 doubt tell us strange things ; but nothing, I believe, that can possibly sanction 

 Darwinism. — I am, my dear Sir, yours, &c., 



" Robert Moffatt.'' 



My next opponent asks me " to believe that language is in itself nothing 

 save the expression of some thought ? " Who denies this, and how does this 

 discovery aflPect the question at issue ? Further on he says, " the difl'erence in 

 kind between a man and a brute is not the mode of expression, but the thing 



