These, however, might be resolved into the simple sympathy which is at the root of all sociability, and which would not only lead to fidelity, but would also give nerve to the courage of primeval man in his contests with wild animals rather than with his fellows. But these so-called social instincts must have been subsidiary to that of self-preservation, on which the idea of property is founded, and to that which gives rise to the desire of revenge to be exerted when that property was injured or appropriated. It is these instincts which do not enter into Mr Darwin's scheme of moral development, and which yet are by far the most important elements in the formation of the moral

sense.

If it is necessary to the due understanding of this subject that we should ascertain whether the elements of the moral faculty can be discovered in the animal mind, it is no less necessary if we would trace the development of that faculty to examine the moral phenomena presented by the more uncivilized races of mankind. The lower we descend in the scale of existing humanity, the nearer may we, primâ facie, expect to approach to the condition of primeval man.1 Not that the ideas of any present race, however uncultured, can exactly reproduce those of the first children of humanity. Allowance must be made for the influence of many ages of social experiences, the constant repetition of which would be necessary before a code of morals, even the most imperfect, could have been formed. There will be no difficulty, however, in discovering, by an examination and comparison of the actions of primitive peoples, the principles which govern them, and thus to

1 Reference may be made to Mr Tylor's work on "Primitive Culture" for a resumé of the arguments in support of the opinion that primeval man was in a low state of civilisation. Chapter-"The Development of Culture."

E

show the condition in which such peoples must have been at the commencement of their moral progress.

THE AUSTRALIANS AND TASMANIANS.

When the phenomena presented by the native inhabitants of the several great divisions of tho earth's surface are compared, it is seen that the aborigines of Australia are on the whole the most barbarous. Both physically and mentally, indeed, they may be supposed to approach as near to the condition of primeval man as any other people now existing. They are not, however, without considerable intelligence. Sir Thomas Mitchell says of them-"They have been described as the lowest in the scale of humanity, yet I found those who accompanied me superior in penetration and judgment to the white men composing my party. Their means of subsistence and their habits are both extremely simple, but they are adjusted with admirable fitness to the few resources afforded by such a country in a wild state."1 Elsewhere the same traveller remarks in relation to them-"The quickness of apprehension of those in the interior was very remarkable, for nothing in all the complicated adaptations we carried with us either surprised or puzzled them. They are never awkward; on the contrary, in manners and general intelligence, they appear superior to any class of white rustics that I have seen. Their powers of mimicry seem extraordinary, and their shrewdness shines even through the medium of imperfect language, and renders them in general very agreeable companions." Much the same testimony is borne by other travellers as to the intellectual characters presented by the Australian natives.

1 "Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Tropical Australia," &c., p. 412.

2 "Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia," vol. ii., p. 334.

That their mental capacity is higher than might be expected from the low position assigned to them in the scale of humanity is true, but it is not surprising when we consider the conditions of aboriginal life in Australia. These are such that the mental faculties are required to be in almost constant exercise. The intellectual activity is, however, confined within a very limited range, and its value may easily be exaggerated, while the moral phenomena presented by the Australians sufficiently justify us in treating them as the least advanced of all human races.1 This cannot be shown better than by comparing their conduct with the simple standard furnished by the Hebrew Decalogue.

Let us take the honouring of parents, and see whether this is recognised among them as praiseworthy? Mr Eyre states that the Australian natives are very fond of their children, "and often play with them and fondle them."2 On the other hand, Admiral Wilkes, of the United States Exploring Expedition, declares that so far as his observation went, the women appeared to care little for their children.3 This opinion, however, is hardly consistent with the observations of other travellers, and probably Mr Wood's estimate is the true one (namely), that when a child is allowed to live, "the Australian mother is a very affectionate one, tending her offspring with the greatest care, and in her own wild way being as loving a parent as can be found in any part of the world." This is well shown by the jealousy with which she guards the relics of her dead

1 Comp. a memoir by the present writer on "The Mental Characteristics of Primitive Man, as exemplified by the Australian Aborigines," in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," vol. i. (1871); critically reviewed by Dr Paul Topinard, in the " Revue d'Anthropologie," vol. i., p. 313, seq.

p. 214.

24 Expedition into Central Australia,” vol. ii., 3 Vol. ii., p. 195. 4 "Natural History of Man," vol. ii., p. 74.

1

child, carrying about with her its skin or mummified body for months or years. It is to be anticipated that there is a response to this feeling, and that the child displays real affection for its parents. Such, indeed, appears to be the case, but this simple emotion can hardly be said to partake of the sentiment of honour. Among the Australian natives, as among other uncultured peoples, children are seldom if ever corrected, and the consequence is that boys, to whom the command of the Hebrew decalogue may be supposed to refer more especially, far from honouring their parents, take little heed of them, especially of their mothers, over whom they often tyrannize.'

2

3

But, perhaps, the precept which forbids homicide, is more agreeable to the customs of the Australian aborigines. It is not necessary to dwell on the many treacherous, and apparently unprovoked murders of white settlers which have from time to time been perpetrated; for there may possibly have been reasons sufficient in the native mind at least to justify those acts. There are, however, certain other occasions of taking human life not attended with the same extenuating circumstances, which, as judged of from the Mosaic stand point, must undoubtedly be declared to be infringements of the law against homicide. According to Sir George Grey, the Australian natives have no idea of death from mere

1 As to this and allied customs, see authorities cited in a paper by the present writer on "Australian Tribal Affinities" in the "Journal of the Anthropological Society" (1870), p. xx.

2 "The Aborigines of Australia," by Gideon S. Lang (1865), p. 34. Mitchell declares that respect for old age is universal. But this most probably arises from the privileges they possess. See Mitchell's Three Expeditions &c.," vol. ii., p. 340; also Eyre, op cit., vol. ii., p. 316, where it is said, as soon as a grey-head" becomes a drag he is cast off to perish. Such is the case also with the sick and helpless. See p. 321.

66

3 For an account of the origin of the "wars" between the natives and the settlers, see Lang, op. cit., p. 37, seq.

natural causes,1 and they believe that where not caused by violence, it is due to the secret sorcery of their enemies. Consequently, it generally happens that the death of one person leads to that of another. The sor

even

cerer has to be discovered and killed, or if death has resulted from violence, the murderer must pay the penalty with his own life. There are other occasions of taking human life which have not the excuse which may be furnished by the promptings of superstition, or the requirements of the custom of blood revenge. Mr Oldfield, speaking of the western natives, says"One article in the creed of the Watchandies, and probably admitted by every other Australian tribe, and one that tends to incite them to murder, is this:-The spirit of the first man slain by anyone, leaving the body of the dead man, enters that of his slayer by the fundament, and taking up its abode in the vicinity of the liver, henceforth acts as the tutelary guardian of his welfare. When any danger threatens the murderer, this warning spirit (woo-rie) informs him of it by a kind of scratching or tickling sensation in those regions, thus returning good for evil." This is only one of various practices which show how slight is the compunction among the native Australians at taking human life. Mr Angas asserts that the tribes on the Murray River were accustomed to bait their fish-hooks with fat taken from the bodies of little boys whom they killed for the purpose. Mr Eyre refers to an analogous custom, and Mr Wood states that human fat is used for rubbing over the body."

5

4

1 This statement probably requires some qualification. See Oldfield, "Transactions of the Ethnological Society," vol. iii., 3d series, p. 245. 2 "Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in Australia," vol. ii., 8 loc. cit., p. 240.

66

p. 337. 4" Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand” (1847), 5 op. cit., ii., 314.

P. 73.

6 op. cit., ii.. 59.