311 
origin/' Professor Huxley cannot be at issue with us on that 
account w T ith respect to Egypt. We have certainly to account 
for the chariots there, but we have neither to wait for the 
development of the horses nor of the men ! The Egyptians 
were clearly immigrants, attracted to the fertile valley of the 
Nile, after , we may presume, its supposed recovery from the 
sea — that is, if it be not maintained that the muddy-looldng 
Egyptians suddenly started from the Nile-mud itself; for the 
only other alternative would be, that they were “ sea-born" 
like the fabled Venus ! — But, if immigrants or colonists, what 
becomes of the gratuitous assumption of enormous time for 
their civilization ? The whole cogency of the argument will 
depend upon the condition of the tribe of Mizraim when they 
colonized the Nile- valley. And surely the men who at once 
proceeded to build Memphis would have been able then to 
make chariots ; and if they did not, we may believe they only 
sensibly waited till they had constructed tolerable roads for 
them to run on. 
But let us take an illustration as to this, from a state of 
things of which we have certain knowledge. Let us suppose 
some grand convulsion of nature to affect Australia, analogous 
to that which may have raised the nummulitic rocks about 
Egypt, from the bottom of the ocean, where they were no 
doubt prepared and formed. Let Australia be cast into the 
sea or submerged, for some generations, and in process of 
time raised up again above the waters. And then suppose 
some future archseological geologist to discover there the 
evidences of the savage condition of the aborigines, as well 
as of the civilized colonists, side by side, or, merely in the 
cities of the latter, the traces of their early and their existing 
condition. What speculations might not then be indulged in, 
what unlimited drafts upon time might not be devised, to 
account for the great advancement in civilization and refine- 
ment and luxury in Australia, upon the theory that its present 
civilization had a savage origin ! 
But then the cogency of the argument would all depend 
upon that assumed theory being true. And, I will say this, 
that if man was originally a savage, or a speechless non- 
descript animal somewhat lower, (which we know is, or was. 
Professor Huxley's own opinion as published to the world not 
many years ago,) then I think the learned Professor will 
require considerably more time than he hinted would be neces- 
sary* and infinitely more than the facts and dates, as he stated 
them, can possibly furnish him, to account for the civilization 
of Egypt. He or we, it seems, are as yet at liberty to in- 
dulge in our respective views upon this point, if we like. But 
z 
