whatever of the character of religion, or of religious observance, to distinguish them from the beasts that perish.' More than one writer has since made use of this telling statement, but without referring to certain details which occur in the very same book. From these it appears that a disease like smallpox, which sometimes attacks the natives, is ascribed by them 'to the influence of Budyah, an evil spirit who delights in mischief;' that when the natives rob a wild bees' hive, they generally leave a little of the honey for Buddai; that at certain biennial gatherings of the Queensland tribes, young girls are slain in sacrifice to propitiate some evil divinity; and that, lastly, according to the evidence of the Rev. W. Ridley, whenever he has conversed with the aborigines, he found them to have definite traditions concerning supernatural beings,-Baiame, whose voice they hear in thunder; Turramullan, the chief of demons, who is the author of disease, mischief, and wisdom, and appears in the form of a serpent at their great assemblies,' &c. By the concurring testimony of a crowd of observers, it is known that the natives of Australia were at their discovery, and have since remained, a race with minds saturated with the most vivid belief in souls, demons, and deities." 1

Sir John Lubbock next seeks proofs of his thesis 1 See Appendix XXVIII.

in India.

"The Yenadies and the Villees, according to Dr Short, are entirely withont any belief in a future state; and again, Hooker tells us that the Lepchas of Northern India have no religion."

Now the former of these statements, even if true, is not relevant. Belief in a future state is not to be identified with religion. The ancient Hebrews have often been accused of ignorance of a future life, but no one has ever said that they were without any religion. Then, the account of Dr Hooker's testimony regarding the Lepchas is most inadequate and misleading. Here are Dr Hooker's words from his Himalayan Journals: "The Lepchas profess no religion, though acknowledging the existence of good and bad spirits. To the good they pay no heed. 'Why should we?' they say: 'the good spirits do us no harm; the evil spirits, who dwell in every rock, grove, and mountain, are constantly at mischief, and to them we must pray, for they hurt us.' Every tribe has a priest-doctor; he neither knows nor attempts to practise the healing art, but he is a pure exorcist, all bodily ailments being deemed the operation of devils, who are cast out by prayers and invocations. Still they acknowledge the Lamas to be very holy men, and were the latter only moderately active, they would soon convert all the Lepchas" (i. 135). It was absurd and self-contradictory in Dr Hooker to begin these lines with the words, "The

Lepchas profess no religion." These words should clearly not have been there, and Sir J. Lubbock would then not have been able to improve them "into the Lepchas of Northern India have no religion." It is clear from Hooker's own words that such is very far from being the case. Substantially his account is in perfect agreement with that contained in Colonel Dalton's 'Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, compiled from Official Documents.' Colonel Dalton, chiefly on the authority of Dr A. Campbell (see Note in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, Bengal, 1840), informs us that the Lepchas are mostly Buddhists, and have priests, who are educated partly at home and partly in the great monasteries of Thibet. All testimony regarding the Lepchas agrees in representing them as a physically handsome, constitutionally timid and peaceable, morally affectionate, and religiously susceptible people.

I pass on to what Sir John has to say of Africa, so far as the subject in hand is concerned. "Captain Grant could find no distinct form of religion' in some of the comparatively civilised tribes visited by him. According to Burchell, the Bachapins (Caffres) had no form of worship or religion. They thought 'that everything made itself, and that trees and herbs grew by their own will.' They had no belief in a good deity, but some vague idea of an evil being. Indeed the first idea of God is almost

always as an evil spirit. Speaking of the Foulahs of Wassoulo, in Central Africa, Caillié states: 'I tried to discover whether they had any religion of their own-whether they worshipped fetishes, or the sun, moon, or stars—but I could never perceive any religious ceremony among them.' Again, he says of the Bambaras, that, 'like the people of Wassoulo, they have no religion,'—adding, however, that they have great faith in charms. Burton also states that some of the tribes in the lake districts of Central Africa 'admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil.' Speaking of Hottentots, Le Vaillant says: 'Je n'y ai vu aucune trace de religion, rien qui approche même de l'idée d'un être vengeur et rémunérateur. J'ai vécu assez longtemps avec eux, chez eux au sein de leurs déserts paisibles; j'ai fait, avec ces braves humains, des voyages dans des régions fort éloignées; nulle part je n'ai rencontré rien qui ressemble à la religion.' Livingstone mentions that, on one occasion, after talking to a Bushman for some time, as he supposed, about the Deity, he found that the savage thought that he was speaking about Sekomi, the principal chief of the district."

This passage is as incorrect as those which precede it. Captain Grant, in his walk across Africa, could not be expected to acquire an intimate knowledge of the tribes he visited, and his not finding a "distinct form of religion" among some of these

tribes can be no proof of their not possessing even the rudiments of religion. The lower forms of religion are occasionally very indistinct. What Burchell affirms of the want of religion in a particular Caffre tribe, is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the Caffre tribes in general are well known to have religious beliefs and rites; while, even according to the account of Burchell, the tribe mentioned had a vague idea of an evil being. The Foulahs are mostly Mohammedans, and what Caillié says about the absence of religion among them can only be true of individuals over a limited area, and in exceptionally unfavourable circumstances. The warmest of Mr Burton's friends will hardly include among his merits caution and moderation either of judgment or statement. Le Vaillant's estimate of the Hottentots is inconsistent with the testimonies of many other travellers. The story about Livingstone and the Bushman probably illustrates merely the difficulty of conversational intercourse between a Scotchman and a Bushman. It should at least have been remembered that Livingstone has written in regard to the peoples of South Africa, "There is no need for beginning to tell even the most degraded of these people of the existence of a God, or of a future state-the facts being universally admitted. . . On questioning intelligent men among the Backwains as to their former knowledge of good and

S