To men of the highest intellectual power and attainments, this agreement has been so convincing that they have given their most hearty assent to the position we maintain. Thus we are assured that, "After deliberate and long research, the French Academy have given their decided opinion that all the languages of the world are but dialects of one, now most probably lost; and that they are reducible, first to clusters and families, and then again to one common origin, whence all have evidently flowed." In addition to the judgment of the Academy, we have that of Humboldt, who says, "However insulated certain languages may at first appear, however singular their caprices and their idioms, all have an analogy among them; and their numerous relations will be more perceived as the philosophic history of nations and the study of languages shall be brought to perfection."

Exactly accordant with that of Humboldt is the judgment of Klaproth, who thus writes: "The universal affinity of language is now placed in so strong a light, that it must be considered by all as completely demonstrated."

Similar testimony is borne by philologists, who are pursuing the investigation still. The last number of the Edinburgh Review will supply you with facts and reasonings confirmatory of all I have advanced. You will learn there and elsewhere that, instead of a large number of unconnected languages, there is but a small number---a few families, as they are called; and that those few are gradually, certainly, and systematically developing resemblances, which will yet go on to be developed, until, by fully carrying out principles which are in vigorous operation already, our scholars will demonstrate the original unity of the languages of the human race.

The illustrious men, whose authority I have adduced, avow moreover their full conviction that the differences now existing between the several languages are traceable to some violent and udden separation of the human race; and although many of

them deny the authenticity of the Pentateuch, they candidly acquiesce in the belief of some such event as the confusion of tongues at Babel.

Seeing then that, amidst the confirmed diversity prevalent in all directions, there are nevertheless verbal agreements and grammatical analogies sufficiently conclusive to command the judgments of such authorities as I have referred to, what remains to us, but to receive their judgment by believing that, whilst the languages of mankind differ, just as they might have been expected to differ by the confusion that occurred at Babel, they are still traceable at length to the same origin-attributable finally to the same source? And if this be believed, then we are possessed of one argument to prove that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth;" for however unaccountable the diversity of mankind in colour and in size, supposing that their origin was the same, far more unaccountable is the similarity of mankind in language, supposing that their origin was not the same. To climate and food, and social and domestic habits, may the former be ascribed. To what, with half as much propriety, may the latter be ascribed? Granting that it is a choice of difficulties, the one which we choose is, beyond question, by far the least. We believe in the unity of language, and therefore, so far we believe in the unity of our race.

Then it may be remarked again, THAT THE COMMON ORIGIN

OF MANKIND IS CONFIRMED BY THE PHYSICAL ORGANIZATION

OF MANKIND. It is the organization of one species.

It may be important to remind you of the meaning of the word species as now employed. In the language of a recent authority on this subject, we are told that "the naturalist regards as a distinct species those races of plants, the differences between which are evident, and are such as are not likely to have resulted from cultivation, or any other external cause, and as do not exhibit any tendency to alteration in the course of

VOL. IV.

H

1

years; such, for example, as the difference between the apple and the pear. Among all the varieties of the apple, different as they are from one another, there is none which exhibit any close resemblance to the pear; and of all the kinds of pear, there is none which so far loses its distinguishing characteristics as to show any great similarity to the apple. And yet, among the varieties of the apple there are several which differ more from one another in size, shape, colour, and flavour than some of themselves differ from the pear. But while all these show a marked tendency to change, under different circumstances of growth, the internal differences between the apple and the pear never exhibit such tendency at all, but remain consistent through all the varieties of each. And as with plants so with animals. The naturalist regards those races of animals as distinct species, whose differences in the ordinary duration of life, in the circumstances of generation, in the average number of progeny, in the susceptibility of infection or contagion, and in the liability to diseases are remarkable and plain. But where the ordinary duration of life, the average number of progeny, the susceptibility of contagion, and the liability to diseases, are the same, in those cases the species is the same, and therefore their origin was the same.'

So much for authority touching the meaning of the term species. Now it is asserted-with your permission I will assert that whatever the varieties among mankind, mankind constitutes but one species. It is quite true that you have varieties to a most remarkable extent; but it is quite as true, that you have similarity to a remarkable extent, and just that kind of similarity which is essential to my argument.

You may take any one of the particulars I have enumerated, and go where you will, in northern or southern latitudes, the application of the criterion will not fail.

Ask the wild Huron, by the banks of his frozen lakes, the

ber of his years, and his answer will agree exactly with

that which you would receive from the islanders of the Pacific. Learn, from the worshipper of the sun in one hemisphere, the circumstances of his birth, and you shall find them to accord with those of the worshipper of the Great Spirit in the other hemisphere. Inquire of the fair Circassian to-day, and of the unsightly Japanese to-morrow, how they are affected by "the pestilence that walketh in darkness," and by "the destruction that wasteth at noon-day," and in substance their replies will just agree. And in like manner will their replies agree to any question which you may propose, concerning any one of the specific differences characterizing yourselves.

As one apple differs from another apple in its size and flavour, and yet remains an apple; as one horse differs from another horse in height, and fleetness, and general habit, and yet remains a horse; so one man differs from another man, in physical appearance and capacity, and yet he is a man withal. There are no essential diversities in those things which constitute humanity. Whatever your criteria of species, presuming they are philosophical, they shall comprehend the Negro as well as the European, they shall include the New Hollander equally with the Esquimaux.

I have admitted that the physical diversities among mankind are numerous. I admit it again; but it should be known to you all, that not a single ascertained diversity is confined to any one single tribe. On this point our authorities are very clear. For instance, Dr. Forster describes two of the tribes of the South Sea Islands who differ generally much from one another; and having done so, he says, "We find, nevertheless, on the one hand, some of the tribe almost as black and slender, and on the other hand, some almost as light and athletic as some of the other tribe. Some are hardly distinguishable from a negro tribe; others depart from it so far as to approximate in symmetry of form, in conformation of head, and in colour of skin, to the natives of Europe." Moreover, Dr. Prichard says,

at the conclusion of an examination into the peculiarities of several tribes, "So then the peculiar construction of head, on the faith of which some would class these people as a distinct species, is by no means a constant character."

Let this suffice to show, that after all that has been said of the absolute certainty of a separate origin for the several tribes of mankind, because they differ in some given peculiarity —that, after all, such peculiarity is not, in any one ascertained case, sufficiently exclusive or essential to sustain the argument that has been drawn. If indeed the tribe which inhabited one latitude never, in any one of its individuals, partook of the characteristics of a tribe which inhabits another latitude, then we might be pressed to grant a distinct original to each; but it is not so. What is common in one case may be uncommon in another. What the generality of white men may present, but a few among the coloured races may present. inasmuch as the few do present it, it cannot be so specifically characteristic of the many as to constitute them a distinct race.

But

The varieties among men, however, are not so numerous, and certainly not more remarkable than those which exist among the lower animals. We see those differences in great abundance. We see them perpetuated and even extended, and yet we know that the individuals thus differing are of the same descent. "All the fowls in Guinea, and the dogs also, are as black as the inhabitants. The ox of the Roman campagna is invariably grey. In Corsica, horses, dogs, and other animals become beautifully spotted." If sheep are transported to the West Indies they lose their wool, and become covered with hair. Removed to some parts of the African coast, sheep undergo such a change that a stranger is unable, unless they bleat, to recognise them as sheep. In short, almost all animals which have been removed from one place to another, and have become subjected to the influence of other climates and other food, have undergone the most extraordinary changes;