544 
SECOND REPORT — 1832 . 
when the Celtae and the German nations, and the Greeks, La¬ 
tins, and Sclavonians were separated from the Hindoos! Yet 
all these nations have preserved from that period strong proofs 
of the identity of their speech!—Nor can we imagine why the 
Tartars alone should have lost all traces of their former lan¬ 
guage, if they had once partaken of the same idiom with the 
nations just mentioned, or had a dialect allied to it! The di¬ 
stinction of races, according to the same principle, will, besides, 
separate nations who are shown to be connected by their lan¬ 
guage, when they happen to have acquired a different character, 
diversities of figure or complexion.—I have already alluded to 
particular instances which exemplify this remark. 
“2ndly. A second objection to the distributing of men into dif¬ 
ferent races on the ground of physical diversities, is, that it is con¬ 
tradictory to the very principle which has been always professed 
by the most enlightened writers on the philosophy of natural 
history, and which, it may be added, had been admirably main¬ 
tained and illustrated by Cuvier himself in regard to the nature 
and distinction of species. The clear and broad line which he 
lays down as constituting the distinction of species in natural 
history, is that of permanent and constant difference. f We 
are under the necessity of admitting the existence of certain 
forms which have perpetuated themselves from the beginning 
of the world, without exceeding the limits first prescribed: all 
the individuals belonging to one of these forms constitute what 
is termed a species.’ ‘ Varieties,’ he adds, 4 are the accidental 
subdivisions of species.’ This is his own account of the laws 
constituting species. By himself the diversities found between 
different races of men are clearly laid down as varieties. To 
regard these afterwards as permanent is to contradict what has 
previously been established. In fact, we must either concede 
at once that there are several distinct human species,— an hypo¬ 
thesis which would be immediately opposed by a number of in¬ 
superable objections,—or we must allow that no permanently 
distinct races as constituted by physical characters exist in the 
one human species. 
“If these general observations are allowed to be well founded, 
they will lead towards the conclusion ,—that the various tribes of 
men are of one origin. The diversities of language carry us, 
indeed, very far back towards the infancy of our race, and are 
perhaps much more ancient distinctions than the varieties of 
form and colour. But these diversities require no such expla¬ 
nation as that of a separate origin, or a distinct creation of the 
several races who are so characterized.” 
