America attempted to remedy this, and others have followed his example in this country, but what has really yet been done is comparatively useless for want of some general system and agreement between anthropologists. Without entering into the value of craniometry in elucidating some of the problems of man's physical nature, I would still insist that the facts are hardly yet at hand by which we can give any decided opinion on this point. During the last few years, much has been done, both in this country and on the continent, in illustrating the crania of different races; but no general system of measurement, based on some definite principle, has yet been successfully promulgated.

However valuable illustrations of crania may be, they are insignificant compared to the knowledge we derive from casts of the interior of the skull cavity. The importance of a collection of casts of the brain cavity of monkeys, anthropoid apes, and man, has induced Mr. Flower, of the Royal College of Surgeons, to undertake the duty of making such a series. Such a collection of casts will ere long bring about "the beginning of the end" of a very long controversy, which might be interminable without thus appealing to actual demonstration.

On such an occasion as the present, I think it will generally be admitted that we ought to consider the method which we should adopt in our investigation. The exact plan by which Anthropology should be studied has never yet been settled: but we must be all agreed on this point, or we shall fail to carry out the objects of the society. The great obstacle to the progress of Anthropology has been à priori assumption, not to say popular superstition. But if we are to make any progress with the science we are met to cultivate and develope, we must give up all such idle speculations as have been indulged in by nearly all ancient and modern writers on this subject. In the long-expected work "On the History of Human Folly," a most important chapter will be occupied in treating of the absurdity of the gratuitous assumptions and speculations on the origin of mankind. When we look back on the number of writers of learning and talent on the origin of humanity, it is perfectly wonderful to see the amount of ability which has been wasted, and all apparently from not investigating the subject by the only method that can lead us to any satisfactory result, viz., inductive and deductive reasoning. The metaphysician and others have attempted to prove the logical necessity of the unity of mankind. But is the origin of Man to be settled by the metaphysician? If so, we have nothing more to do. But what has been the result of such a state of things? Exactly what was to

be expected. While rapid progress has been made in every branch of science, the so-called "Science of Man" has remained exactly where Herder left it nearly one hundred years ago. It is evident, therefore, that as long as we continue to wildly speculate, no advance can be made, and we can never have a science of Man until we take the trouble to use a scientific method of investigation. We must, therefore, make up our minds to give up all assumptions and wild theories, and remember that the great problem of Anthropology can only be settled by facts, and not by abstract logic. It may be we shall have to wait for years before we shall get any true light as to the real origin of Man: but we must abide our time. We should always bear in mind that the man who believes nothing is nearer the truth than the one who believes in errors.

But judging from the researches that have been made during the last few years, there is some faint hope that we shall not have to wait long before a really rational theory of Man's origin can be advanced. The present time is most opportune for the formation of a society like ours. The question of the origin of Man which, owing to assumed vested interests, ignorance and superstition, had long been a forbidden subject of controversy, has now forced itself not only on the attention of men of science, but on that of the public generally. We have only to recall the episode of John Hunter and his "thousands of centuries," to see what a vast change has taken place during the last few years. Thanks to the geologist, we have facts to shew the existence of man at a period so remote that none dare assign even an approximative date. Indeed, in the present state of our knowledge, it were idle speculation to do so. The public mind is not accustomed to take sudden leaps, and we must, therefore, be content to wait for a time until the popular mind is prepared fully to understand the immense extent of time which the flint implements in the drift and other phenomena really indicate.

To show the absurdity of attempting to fix even an approximative date for the appearance of Man upon the earth, I quoted, in a paper read before the British Association at Oxford in 1860, the opinion of one of the most recent writers on the History of Mankind on this subject. Professor Waitz thinks to reconcile the hypothesis of the unity of origin of mankind (for which he is an advocate), that Man could not have been on the earth less than thirty-five thousand years, and that possibly he may have appeared as long ago as nine millions of years! Of course, such an opinion created a hearty laugh from those who were assembled in the divinity schools on that day. But Professor

Huxley has just asserted, "if any form of the doctrine of progressive development is correct, we must extend by long epochs the most liberal estimate that has yet been made of the antiquity of man.”* If any plea were wanting for founding this society, I would ask you to look at the different degrees of progress which the sciences of Geology and Anthropology have made during the last fifty years. While geologists have been dealing with demonstrated facts, most anthropologists have been idly speculating, and others employing themselves in the still less profitable task of attempting to show the identity of black and white by metaphysical subterfuges totally unworthy, not only of science, but of all serious consideration. Geology has within a few years become a great science, and the most ignorant or superstitious dare not assail her conclusions. But Anthropology has been totally stationary during this time. And why? Because the same method of inquiry has not been employed. We should, therefore, take a lesson from the geologist, and found a science on facts. This course seems so self-evident, that I ought to apologize for even mentioning such things, did I not know that one branch of Anthropology, i.e. the science of nations, or Ethnology, has been attempted frequently to be based on historical statements, etc., and we have had the "Natural History of Man" written before we had any reliable facts on which to found that history. Besides this, we find that the ethnologists have encumbered their science with all sorts of terms which are based merely on vague historical data, and frequently on myths. The whole of the nomenclature of the ethnologists is full of terms, the use of which imply a theory. We must be careful to avoid, as far as possible, the error into which they have fallen. I would strongly urge the necessity of rigid care in the acceptance of historical statements as a basis for our own science. The only portions of history, ancient or modern, which are of any use at all, are the observations which were made by contemporary historians. But these statements even are generally too vague to be of any value for science. As we do not now accept the opinion of any one traveller as the basis of science, so must we be careful not to accept the authority of any one historian. All our facts, as far as possible, should admit of verification, but with the exception of some of the statements in history relative to astronomical science, these statements do not admit of verification; and we must, therefore, not look to the historian to throw any great light on our science. We must study Archæology as a science, and merely use history as a

* Man's Place in Nature, 1863, p. 159.

commentary. Ethnology, as now understood, has quite outgrown the narrow basis on which it was started. We must, therefore, enlarge and deepen our foundations; collect a range of facts, and extend our sphere of observation, before we begin to fight some of the most popular ethnological questions of the day. Whatever might have been the value of Dr. Prichard's works in their generation, it is certain that is no little disgrace to our science that these works are still the text-books of the day. It is true, however, that neither in France nor Germany are the text-books on this subject of a much more satisfactory character. All systematic works have one fault in common; that they leave the great foundations of the science entirely based on conjecture, while they discuss subjects which are at present of little consequence, and only tend to produce party warfare. An attempt has been made to divide all ethnologists into two parties, monogenists and polygenists: and each party is supposed to be bound to support the side to which they may be espoused. Such a state of things is most unfortunate for science, and no progress can be made until we give up such fruitless skirmishing. If we take a glance at any of the great physical questions connected with Man, we find that nearly all is speculation-much, simple mythology. If we go to Borneo, we get the myth of the creation of man from the dust of the earth, and that woman was made from the great toe of the man; and the Thibetians believe that mankind descended from the ape.* Both hypotheses are very imaginative, and perhaps have about the same amount of actual facts to support them. What we know is, that transformation of species has yet to be proved. No one (except Agassiz and his confrères) will deny the possibility of the descent of man from the ape by some unknown law of development: but the admission does not in the least give any countenance to such being at all proved by existing data. Oken's origin of man from the scum of the sea belongs to the same category of assumptions, and the speculations of Reichenbacht also require facts to support them. He says, "The soil in which the first man originated was an animal, and his first mother was an animal, and his first nourishment was the milk of an animal." Very likely this was so; but we shall want more evidence than this author gives us to accept such a statement for anything more than an hypothesis-supported by presumed analogy, but not by facts. We shall probably see what must have been the law of Man's origin long before we shall be able to

* Link, History of Mankind.

+ Über die Entstehung des Menschen.

demonstrate it. It will be our duty to test these hypotheses one against another-not by our own preconceived notions and theories, but by all the facts we can collect. We must always be ready to change our theories to suit our facts. As knowledge advances, it is absolutely necessary that the theories of every honest scientific man should change. True science cares nothing for theories, unless they accord with the facts. An hypothesis may be all very reasonable and beautiful, but unless it is supported by facts, we should always be prepared to give it up for one that is so supported; and as knowledge advances, so must the true scientific man change his theories. We should endeavour to be careful not to fancy we aid the cause of science when we absurdly give our support to theories that no longer can be reconciled with established facts. It will be a great misfortune to science, should students of nature ever become thus fondly wedded to their theories. Such conduct is to be expected from the ignorant, and consequently bigoted; but cannot be adopted by real seekers after truth. No doubt it is a weakness of our natures thus to cling to the theories of our youth; but we must be careful not to yield unreasonably to the charms of a first love. In our science, which, at present, is nearly all hypothesis, I think there is great need of this caution, and that we shall do well all to remember, that instead of having any cause of shame in giving up our unsupported theories, that it is something of which to be proud.

But having said so much, I ought, perhaps, to add, that it is the best plan to be very cautious in forming such positive theories, until we are warranted to do so by actual facts. We want speculation; but we must be careful always to make a rigid distinction between verified facts and speculation. It is the custom of the public to assert that a certain scientific man holds a certain opinion, theory, or hypothesis; but we must do all we can to let the thinking public know that such hypothesis is only held until we can get one that will more fully explain the facts. It is frequently asserted by scientific men on the Continent, that our cultivators of science are "priest-ridden," and afraid to give utterance to their real scientific opinions. I will not stay to inquire into the amount of truth in the assertion, or to show that its general application is a gross calumny. I hope the members of this society will join with me in endeavouring to prove that many of our Continental friends entirely mistake our honesty in fancying that "the fear of public scandal," (as they call it), in any way daunts the most free and open expression of honest opinion.

I have touched on the hypothetical views of Man's origin, and