of the Negroes of the Philippines. Ibid. It is for this reason especially that the information given us by Don Sinibaldo de Mas is particularly important. The great object of Mr. Crawfurd's Dissertation is to prove that the old theory of Marsden, Reffles and Wm. Humboldt which has also been adopted by Mr. Earl is erroneous of there having been at some former period one general language prevailing through the Archipelago, of which the various languages now existing are dialects or fragmentary relics remoulded into their present forms. His learning and knowledge of his subject is entitled to our greatest respect, but his conclusions do not appear to me always equally well founded, especially his illustrations. He frequently refers to what he calls Latin words in the Welsh and Gaelic and observes "the proportion of Teutonic words in Italian or French, or of Norman French in English, far exceeds that of the Malay in these languages, but we do not therefore jump to the conclusion that the German and Italian races and language are one and the same or that the English people and their language are of Gallic origin" p. 159. Granted that the existence of a great number of words of the same sound and import in different languages do not afford a good conclusion for their being derived from the same stock, yet it does prove that there must have been at some anterior period a great intercourse, connexion or commingling between the several nations whereby the languages became so mixed up together. As to the Malays it appears clear that they are divided into a number of different nations, speaking very distinct languages, p. 144, and possessing different characteristics and shades of color. The latter I mention more particularly, as it is upon that distinction that they are made to constitute Varieties of the Human Species. Some of these Malays are described fairer than others, some browner, and Mr. Crawfurd refers to some as "intermediate between Malay and Papuan", p. 94. He attempts to disprove the connexion of languages, but passing by the remark that we might show from his own statements a greater connexion than he is willing to admit, yet still he admits enough to prove a very intimate connexion between them. The question then arises how to account for that connexion except by intimate relationship of some sort or other between them, such as Don Sinibaldo de Mas has pointed out? They were at constant enmity, they had little or no commercial intercourse, they had no missionaries to send out, and yet as in the Philippine islands, as Mr. Crawfurd admits, besides the numerals they had the same primitive words as we may term them
