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 irot possess articulate speech ; ” and 
supported this statement by a reference to the Yeddahs 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 suit* 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 Yeddahs, 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 Yeddah 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 Bev. Dr. Moffatt, 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, Jtine 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 affect the question at issue ? Further on he says, “ the difference in 
hind between a man and a brute is not the mode of expression, but the thing 
