however, with great perplexity, in regarding the multitude and variety of these different forms, hitherto reckoned only by approximation, but certainly exceeding some hundreds in number. Many of these are reducible, with more or less deviation, to certain common roots-others do not yet admit of such affiliationothers again have been so imperfectly examined or recorded, owing to the want of a common phonetic system, that no sure place has yet been assigned to them in the series.

It is to this seeming chaos of tongues that the labours of modern scholars and philosophers have been earnestly directed; not simply for the solution of questions as to the structure, diversities, and connexions of language, but with yet higher aim, in regard to the origin and progress of nations. Ethnology owes many of its most precious documents to these researches. They have aided it where the records of history were obscure or altogether wanting; and it cannot be doubted by those who have watched the course of this science of late years that it is destined to advance much farther by the same prolific methods of inquiry. We have before noted the names of some of the eminent men engaged on the subject, The Discourse on Ethnology' by Chevalier Bunsen is a remarkable example of these labours, and of the philosophical refinements which have been added to the study of language. The vague and partial conjectures of etymology, and the crude catalogues of words caught by the untutored ear, are now replaced by a close and critical research into the principles of language, and into analogies of a higher class than those founded upon words and sounds alone. We could willingly pursue this topic further, but must limit ourselves simply to what may show the vast aids derived from this source to the study of the history of Man; and the increasing certainty of the conclusions, as the materials become larger, and the methods of using them more comprehensive and exact.

The classification of languages is, in truth, the classification of mankind-the migration and intermixture of languages are records of the changes and movements of man over the face of the globe. From the singular multiplicity, however, of these forms of human speech, a person new to the subject might well suppose it impossible to arrive at any certain issue; while those who have gone deepest into it find certain limits, which no genius or labour can surmount. Nevertheless, in relation to our argument, this very multiplicity, like that of the physical varieties of mankind, becomes an evidence of common original. Whatever opinion be held as to the primitive source of language-and many have found cause to consider it of divine communication—we may fairly presume that the numerous varieties of speech, now existing, had

their origin in the detached localities and under the various conditions in which portions of mankind were carly spread over the earth. Their formation, and the changes they have undergone, have been determined by the faculties, feelings, and social instincts, common to the whole species, and requiring analogous modes of expression by speech. Accordingly we find that the grammatical relations of different languages, apart from those technical forms which disguise them to ordinary observation, are more certain and closer than the connexion by words and roots. Were there more than one species of mankind, and were the type of one race really inferior in its origin to that of another, nothing would be so likely to attest this as the manner of communication of thought and feeling. Language itself would become the surest interpreter of this difference. But its actual varieties, only partially coincident with the degree of civilization and social advancement, offer no such lines of demarcation; and, however, great the differences, all possess and manifest in their structure a common relation to the uses or necessities of man.

The most peculiar class of languages, that most detached from others in its genius as well as forms, is undoubtedly the monosyllabic, as spoken and written in China and certain conterminous countries. The singularities of this inorganic language, as it may well be termed, have furnished endless matter of discussion to the most accomplished philologists. It has even been made a question whether it should be termed the most imperfect or the most perfect form of human speech; whether the rudest or the most philosophical of inventions. Without engaging in a warfare of definitions, which here, as in so many other cases, are the real matter in dispute, we may safely state it to fulfil all the probable conditions of language in its earliest and most simple form. M. Bunsen goes so far as to consider it as a monument of antediluvian speech, insulated from others by physical changes on the globe, and retaining those primitive and fundamental characters which have elsewhere merged into secondary and more complex forms. Without following him into this bold speculation, it is sufficient to say that, even if the Chinese language were proved to stand absolutely alone in its most prominent features, we could recognise in this no proof of a separate stock of mankind. The physical characters of this people distinctly denote them as belonging to the great Mongolian family; and as the monosyllabic form of language does not extend to other nations of that race, we are not entitled from its peculiarities to deduce a conclusion which is opposed to these less dubious marks of a common original.

We are left, then, amidst this multitudinous array of tongues,

with no more certain clue of origin than those common necessities of social life and intercourse which belong to the species. These, however, are necessities in the strongest sense of the word. They compel the formation of language, and even of the more essential grammatical forms which it assumes. To explain its multiplied varieties we can do no other than admit, what is probable indeed on other grounds, the early separation of the human race into distinct communities, and the dispersion of those into localities so far detached as to give cause and scope for the formation of new languages; some of them retaining obvious traces of a primitive root, and collaterally connected more or less closely with other tongues; others, again, seemingly insulated in origin and independent of all such connexion. The latter case is obviously the one most difficult to conceive, compatibly with a single origin of mankind; and in seeking for explanation we feel ourselves forced backwards upon periods of time which may well alarm the imagination and discourage inquiry. Recent research, however, has done a good deal to abate these difficulties; and it is important to remark here, as we have done in respect to the physical diversities of mankind, that the more minute the inquiry, the more do all differences and anomalies disappear from view. A mere superficial regard to words and sounds often leaves widely asunder what a rigid analysis of methods and roots will exhibit as closely related in origin, and dissevered only by successive steps, which are sometimes themselves to be traced in existing forms of speech. The philosophy of language thus becomes a guide to ethnology, the best interpreter of the history of nations.

Were we not limited here to a mere outline of the subject, many instances might be given of these recent discoveries in philology which have removed old barriers of time and space, and thrown their light forwards upon fields of knowledge still unexplored. It is interesting to note how much these discoveries, as well as the classification and nomenclature of languages previously adopted, connect themselves with the recorded tripartite division of mankind into three great families after the Scriptural deluge. Some of the most remarkable results recently obtained are those which disclose relations, hitherto unsuspected or unproved, between the language of Ancient Egypt and the Semitic and Japhetic languages of Asia; thus associating together in probable origin those three great roots which, in their separate diffusion, have spread forms of speech over all the civilized parts of the world. Taking the Japhetian, or Indo-Teutonic branch, as it has lately been termed, we find these inquiries embracing and completing the connexions between the several families of language which compose this eminent division of mankind;

already

already dominant in Europe for a long series of ages, and destined apparently, through some of its branches, to still more general dominion over the globe. We may mention, as one of the latest examples of the refined analysis of which we are speaking, the complete reduction of the Celtic to the class of Indo-Teutonic languages, through the labours of Bopp, Prichard, and Pictet; whereby an eighth family is added to this great stock, and the circle completed which defines their relations to one another, and to the other languages of mankind.

In closing our remarks on this subject we must again repeat that we have almost exclusively limited them to what regards its general connexion with the primitive history of man;—unable to include that vast body of knowledge which has given philology a place among the sciences, and associated it with ethnology by relations which serve to illustrate and verify both. Yet we have said enough to show how closely the history of human language is connected with that of the human species-and, further, how strongly these researches tend to the same conclusion as that already deduced from physiology, viz. that man is of one species, and derived from a single pair primitively created on the earth. There yet remain two inquiries, to which, notwithstanding their interest, we have only slightly adverted-those, namely, which regard time and place in their relation to this great event. But, to say nothing of the intrinsic difficulty of these questions under any circumstances, we consider that they cannot reasonably be brought into view until we have first mastered, as far as it may be done, this preliminary science of human languages. Our physical knowledge of man, as a part of the animal creation, is wholly inadequate to such inquiries; and he must, in truth, be an adventurous reasoner who expects to draw from either source any certain solution of them.

We may possibly at a future time resume this important subject in the greater detail it requires. Meanwhile, we hope to have already justified the assertion with which we prefaced this article, that there is no subject of science of deeper interest than that which regards the natural history and original condition of man. Even were the questions it involves less remarkable, and less important in regard to the present and future condition of the species, the methods of argument and sources of evidence are such as may well engage and engross every scientific inquirer. The evidence is drawn from all parts of creation-from the mind, as well as from the bodily conformation of man himself. The argument is one of probability; always tending to greater certainty, though, it may be, incapable of ever reaching that which is complete. But this is a method of reasoning well understood

to

to be compatible with the highest philosophy, and peculiarly consonant to our present faculties and position in the universe. And if in this ocean of disquisition fogs have been often mistaken for land,' as in so many other regions of science, we may at least affirm that the charts are more correctly laid down than ever before; the bearings better ascertained; and that our reason can hardly be shipwrecked on this great argument, if common caution be observed in the course we pursue.

Ordered by the

ART. II.-1. Toleration Act Amendment Bill. House of Commons to be printed. 9th August, 1848. 2. Clergy Relief Bill. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 5th March, 1849.

3. Clergy Relief Bill, as amended by the Select Committee. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 3rd April, 1849.

4. Clergy Relief Bill. Brought from the Commons, and ordered by the House of Lords to be printed. 25th July, 1849.

AS it is sufficiently well known that there are various matters,

civil and ecclesiastical, with respect to which the clergy are looking for relief by legislation, it is easily to be conceived that many a member of that body may have had his curiosity agreeably excited during the past Session, by observing in the newspapers certain parliamentary discussions from time to time under the inviting title of Clergy Relief Bill.' Nor is it more difficult to imagine his feelings of disappointment, when, upon examining a little further into the matter, he may have found, that the clergy relief proposed to be granted was not a relief of any sort to clergymen continuing such, but simply a relief, to those disposed to accept of it, and so far as this depends on legislation, from being clergymen at all. We trust, however, that the choice of this title, infelicitous at best, and degrading if it had been made with full knowledge and consideration, is to be ascribed not to the mover of the Bill, Mr. Bouverie, but to some officer of the House of Commons, whose duty it may be to dress the outside of bills, and to know nothing of what is within, and especially to select for what we understand is termed, under a recent regulation, the 'short title' of a Bill, some designation not running beyond a very limited number of syllables. Such a proceeding is doubtless recommended by convenience, with a view to the frequent repetition of the title of Bills required by the rules of the House at their various stages; but it has led in the instance before us to a misnomer. Members of parliament,

however,