217 
meaning aright), that had it gone before his Section he would have en- 
deavoured to suppress it. I am glad that in Section E, a more liberal spirit 
was exhibited and my paper allowed to be read. I do not deny that it 
might quite properly be called an “Anthropological Paper,” though now 
(knowing what its probable fate would have been), I am very glad I 
had declined to offer it to the Anthropological Department of Section I). 
There are, however, special reasons for saying that the paper was most 
properly read in Section E. In the first place, it will be observed, that 
the physiologists and naturalists being at issue about Darwinism, the 
arguments advanced in the paper are chiefly based upon historical and 
ethnological evidences. At the very next meeting of the same Section a 
most interesting account was given by Mr. Thomson of the recent dis- 
coveries m Cambodia (in Siam), of the ruins of magnificent and gigantic 
temples, so far beyond the capabilities of the present inhabitants or their 
immediate forefathers for many generations to accomplish, that their tradition 
is that these ancient buildings must have been constructed by a superior 
race of beings altogether, -or “the gods.” Of their great antiquity there 
can be no doubt ; the style of architecture is intermediate between that of 
Egypt and Greece ; and there is now a dense forest interposed between the 
buildings and the rocks whence the stone used in their construction is sup- 
posed to have been procured. Dr. Mann, also, on the same day and in the 
same Section, narrated his experiences relating to the attempts which have 
been made to educate and civilize the Kaffirs and Zulus ; and on thefollow- 
ing day Sir Samuel Baker recounted some of his recent most interesting 
adventures among the negroes of the White Nile Basin, and especially dis- 
cussed their savage condition, and their tendency to continue savage and 
degenerate. The only instance which he mentioned of anything somewhat 
better to be found among them, he attributed to the influence of the Arabs 
with whom they had had communications. Professor Huxley was present, 
too, when that paper was read, and he even spoke upon it ; though I cannot 
say he discussed it, for he only referred to one or two of the facts mentioned 
by Sir Samuel Baker, which did not bear upon “ the question of questions 
for mankind.” Having referred in my paper (p. 195) to Sir Samuel Baker’s 
statements made in the Ethnological Society, merely as I had seen them re- 
ported in the newspapers, it was a great gratification to me to hear them 
myself, repeated in the crowded meeting in Section E, where my own paper 
had been previously read, and to hear not a word from him that was not 
entirely confirmatory of the views which I had expressed. The account of 
the ruins of Cambodia was also a fresh illustration in support of one branch 
of my arguments ; and I think, now, it will be seen that it was most fitting 
that arguments based upon our knowledge of such archaeological and ethno” 
logical facts should have been advanced in the same section of the British 
Association, where fresh evidence and additional facts of the very same kind 
are constantly brought forward. 
To revert to the discussion upon my paper. I scarcely required to answer 
Sir John Lubbock’s objection to the term “religious theory,” as it had met 
