would wish distinctly to state, that it is not only the unity of origin from a single pair that is a pure hypothesis, but that the somewhat popular view of the plurality of original pairs, or the creation of Man in Nations, (as Agassiz and many others hold,) rests on no better evidence than the hypothesis of unity of origin. It has been sometimes asserted that there is less difficulty in assuming the plurality of origin than to explain how all races could have descended from one pair: but science has nothing to do with what is the easiest explanation, we want to know what is the truth.

The accomplished and zealous President of the Ethnological Society, in one of his recent papers, writes, "that mankind consists of many originally created species, and that the hypothesis of unity of races is without foundation."* Mr. Crawfurd might have added, I think, with equal truth, that the hypothesis of "many originally created species" is equally without foundation.

It has recently become so much the fashion to assert original difference to explain every phenomenon connected with Man, that it has been found necessary to continually increase the number of protoplasts, until the last writer on the Classification of Man (Mr. Crawfurd), assumes upwards of forty distinct species. I think it well to quote the words of our great countryman, John Stuart Mill, on the subject. He goes so far as to say, "Of all the vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effects of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent original natural differences." All that can safely be asserted against the unity of the origin of mankind is, that there is no existing race or species which can be assumed to be the type of the original Man. The assumption of some ideal type of man from which all existing forms have arisen, is not based on any scientific data, and is merely speculation. It is a matter of uncertainty whether we shall ever be able to demonstrate by actual facts the modus operandi of Man's origin, but we may be able to ascertain the laws to which he owes his birth.

The remarks I have made respecting the necessity of having facts to support an hypothesis, find an apt illustration in that mythical and poetical subject-the place of Man's origin. There is not a continent, and hardly an island, which has not been asserted to be the birthplace of man. Not having facts to support any of these poetical dreams, we need not now concern ourselves with such a subject.

* Transactions of Ethnological Society, vol. i, p. 2. New Series, 1861, p. 554. + Principles of Political Economy, vol. i, p. 390.

We have some other questions that must be settled, before we come to the place of Man's origin; and in the meantime we may decline, as scientific students, to found any theory on mere tradition. Yet it is strange we should have a learned writer like Baron von Eckstein* fixing the place of man's origin. Writing only in 1860, he says, "Everything points to the region of the sources of the Indus, Oxus, Jaxartes, and Serika rivers. There or nowhere is the cradle. This suits the historian, the politician, the geologist, the geographer." But does this spot suit the anthropologist? If we agree with the geologist, the baron's dogmatic assertions might be of some value. Those friends of fiction will be greatly interested in a work by Dr. Schulthess, in which he believes to prove most conclusively that Africa was the original Paradise. Whether it was in the neighbourhood of the Gaboon he does not say. Equally powerful claimants there are for different parts of Asia and the island of Ceylon. It is evident, therefore, that tradition is not so positive as to the place of Man's origin as some imagine.

It is necessary to decide the scope and object of our Society. We look upon Anthropology as the Science of Mankind. We shall therefore treat of every thing that will throw light on the physical or psychological history of Man. It will be essentially our object to trace the primitive history of Man. But in doing this we require the aid of the geologist, archæologist, anatomist, physiologist, psychologist, and philologist. It is, therefore, nearly impossible in the present imperfect state of our science to be master of all these subjects. The time also has, perhaps, not yet come when the different sciences can all be brought to bear on the history of mankind. It is frequently asserted that we want more observation before we can generalize on this subject. But I doubt if this be so. We have abundance of observations and facts of a certain kind; but the observations are valueless, because nearly all travellers only see what suits their own preconceived notions. Facts, too, we have in abundance, but they are not of the right sort. For science we must have exact details; but this is what we have not got. It must be our object to decide what are the facts we most want, and collect information on a systematic plan. No country has during the last three hundred years published more works of travel than ours, and no people have had the same opportunity of studying the different races of man: but, unfor

Baron von Eckstein in Zeitschrift für Völker psychologie; edited by Dr. Lazarus and Dr. Steinthal. Vol. i. part iv. 1860.

+ Das Paradies. Zurich, 1816.

tunately, little of all these writings and observations are of any value to science. While men at home were dealing in assumptions, and performing the part of special pleaders for their own pet dogmas, we could not expect anything else from travellers. It must be our object to get travellers to give up all theories, and simply collect reliable facts. Another cause of the comparative uselessness of the accounts of travellers is the want of honesty in telling what they really saw. Some fear shocking public opinion, while others indulge in exaggerations for the sake of the excitement which their narrative produces in the reading public. Missionaries have had grand opportunities of studying the characteristics of uncultivated nations, but their narratives are proverbially useless to science by reason of the self-glorifying accounts of the results of their own labours. Some of the mildest people in the world have been called "cannibals" and "lowest savages," when there has not been a shadow of truth in the charge. But, generally speaking, travellers have not been to blame; the fault lies with the cultivators of science at home.

And here I must touch on a subject of deep importance. We have to found a great science, and we shall want labourers abroad as well as at home. These labourers to be of any real service to science must receive some preliminary training. They must have all nursery tales eradicated from their minds, and be taught to seek for facts and search for truth. The Anthropologist requires training, like the botanist, the zoologist, or the geologist. But this training can never be effected by a society like our own. Indeed such a scheme does not come within our object. It must, therefore, be done by the public. The Government must give to Anthropologists the same aid which it renders to the geologist. Surely it is not reasonable that we should care more for the extinct than for living forms of animal life. While it is the duty of Government to aid the study of the Anthropologist, it is also the duty of our Universities to make the Science of Mankind a special subject of study. I look forward to the day when all our Universities shall have professors whose sole study shall be the philosophy of mankind. In the political world the subject of "race" has been playing so prominent a part that the dullest legislator must begin to see that political institutions are not simply the result of the statesman's genius, but that there are higher laws in operation, to counteract which all his efforts are useless. It is true that in the present state of our science we can offer no positive dogmas to the politician; but we see enough to know that laws are secretly working for the development of some nations and the destruction of others; which it is both the province and the duty of the politician to assist in

discovering. We must go on working as best we can, and ere long the public will see that it is for their own interest, and for the benefit of humanity at large, that the scientific study of Man shall be made a part of national education.

While, however, State aid is certain to come in time, we must at present appeal to private enterprize to assist in carrying out what is, to a great extent, national work. And one of the best means of helping to do this is by the establishment of a good and reliable museum. In this country there is really no ethnographical museum which is at all worthy of the British nation. With better opportunities than any other people, our ethnographical museums are still very inferior and imperfect. It will be our duty not to care so much for collecting a museum of our own, as to assist in forming one that shall be worthy of the country. How this can best be carried out must always be a matter for earnest consideration. In the meantime this society will commence forming a museum; but I think we ought always to be ready to give up anything that will be for the benefit of the public or the cause of science.

But there are other duties which will demand our more immediate attention; and I will briefly touch on some of these, as it may serve to illustrate how we purpose to carry out the work we have undertaken.

Much of the future success of the Society will perhaps depend on the character of the papers read at our meetings. I suggest, therefore, that, as far as possible, it will be advisable, in the present confused state of our science, that we should give preference to such papers which have for their object the removal of some of these mysteries. To-night we will discuss whether we shall go on playing with the so-called science of man, or whether we shall be content to give up all dogmas, confess our ignorance as to knowing anything about the laws regulating man's origin or development, and be willing to begin de novo, only basing our opinions on actual demonstrable facts, and arguing solely from the logical inference from such data. If we decide on our method to-night, we can then go on to discuss at our next meeting the terms we agree to use. There is an absolute necessity we should endeavour to agree on this point, for science can make no advance, while hardly two persons use such an important word as "race" in the same sense. As a new science, which we hope to see popular, I trust that an endeavour will be made to render the terms we use as simple as possible. We had better spend the whole of this session in debating this subject, in order to come to some general agreement, than rush madly on to the discussion of

the subject, which we cannot argue with any profit, until we have settled the meaning we each attach to the terms we shall use in our warfare. Various subjects will be brought under consideration, and amongst others the question as to how far it would be advisable to make use of the terms of the phrenologists in our minute descriptions of the crania of races of man. We, of course, cannot accept any such dogmatic system as a basis of work; but we must see how far it will be advisable to adopt the nomenclature of the phrenologist for describing human crania. The Manual of Ethnological Inquiry, put forth by the British Association, has already recommended the expediency of using the terminology of the phrenologist, and such a recommendation has, some think, tended to retard the rapid progress of cranioscopy. Phrenology, as a system, we cannot accept; but we are bound to inquire how far it is founded on true principles. I presume that we shall nearly all be disposed to admit fully that the form and quality of the brain in some way indicates the intellectual and moral character of the man; but we must not rush hurriedly and build up a system, or accept any system which is founded on this general admission. The phrenologists have hitherto paid too much attention to mere form, and not enough to quality, which is quite as important. Nor must we accept such a dogma as that propounded by Liebig, that the cerebral action must be proportionate to the mass of the brain. On the contrary, we must seek for a solution of many of the contradictions which surround this subject, in the minute histological anatomy, or in the chemical constituents of the brain of the different families of man and the lower animals. Schlossberger has already affirmed that there is less fat and more water in the brain of children than of adults. If we take this with the dogma of Moleschott, that "Without phosphorus there is no thought," we shall see the value of chemical and microscopical investigation on this subject. The exact relation which thought bears to some form, quantity, and quality of the brain, is as yet uncertain; all we now know is, that they are connected: but it is left for us to discover the exact relations.

It is not a little remarkable, that amongst all the journals devoted to different branches of science, there has as yet been no independent journal for the interchange of communications from anthropologists in different parts of the world. The advent of our Society will enable such a journal to be founded. This journal will, however, not be under the influence of the Society, further than engaging to print our official reports. It will be for the use of, and a medium of communication between all anthropologists. I need hardly say how valuable such a journal will be to us as a Society, and indeed for