11 
“ Secondly, that among the most civilized nations there are traces of 
original barbarism.” 
But before proceeding to attempt to establish either of these 
propositions, he introduces some illustrations which he thinks 
serve to support another proposition which he assumes to be 
true; namely, that it is improbable that any race of men 
would be likely to abandon or forget pursuits or arts which 
they or their ancestors once found useful or had known. 
Now I venture to think that that proposition is very 
far from undeniable ; but, even granting it, I think we 
shall find, that the illustrations given by Sir John do not 
support it. 
18. He says : — 
“ The Archbishop supposes that men were, from the beginning, herds- 
men and cultivators, but we know the Australians, North and South 
Americans, and several other more or less savage races, living in countries 
eminently suited to our domestic animals and to the cultivation of cereals, 
were yet entirely ignorant both of the one and the other.” 
Then he argues that 
“Were the present colonists of America or Australia to fall into such a 
state of barbarism, we should still find in those countries herds of wild 
cattle descended from those imported ; and even if these were exterminated, 
still we should find their remains, whereas we know that not a single bone 
of the ox or of the domestic sheep has been found either in Australia* or 
in America.” 
The confusion of thought here is literally amazing. He 
speaks of the present colonists, but evidently of future herds of 
wild cattle ; and while he uses the words that these “ wild 
cattle 33 would be descendants from tame ones u imported 33 he 
forgets that all his argument topples down, if we but sup- 
pose the first civilized colonists to degenerate before such cattle 
were imported into the country. He seems to have no idea of 
colonization except of some Utopian kind, in which the colonists 
would always be able to take and always take with them the 
domestic animals and cereals to which they had been accus- 
* But let me ask, are there any sedimentary strata in Australia in 
which any bones whatever have been found? ( Vide Mr. Hopkins’s paper, 
Journ. of Trans, of Viet. Inst., vol. ii. p. 11.) And mark, Sir John argues 
here that this negative evidence is conclusive. The bones of these animals 
have not been found ; ergo, they never existed there. And yet he, Sir 
Charles Lyell, and Mr. Darwin, in the absence of any bones of the “ mis- 
sing link,” between man and apes, notwithstanding argue that as they 
may be found, so they believe in their probable existence ! ! 
