An Interview with the Editor 425 



AN INTERVIEW WITH THE EDITOR. 



Although, Mr. Editor, you have been obliging in answering 

 our letters, we have ventured to seek an interview in the 

 belief that by some viva voce explanations, we may perhaps 

 both save you trouble and get more explicit information. 



Well, I shall be happy to be cross questioned, and will 

 reply as best I can. What is the first article of accusation ? 



We have no accusations to bring but wish merely to 

 mention some points which to our minds you have left 

 obscure. To begin with, in one of your first papers, you 

 asserted that there was good reason for believing that men 

 had lived on the land now called Britain for a quarter of a 

 million years. We want to know what is the nature of the 

 evidence which supports such a statement. 



First let me suggest that there is nothing improbable in it. 

 It is quite certain that the land which we now call Britain 

 existed at even much more remote periods, and was the home 

 of animals of comparatively modern species. In association 

 with the bones of such animals there have been found the 

 flint tools of human beings. 



But why do you fix upon a quarter of a million ? 



It is the calculated date of the great ice age, but of course 

 it is only approximate. 



We have observed that in an extract which you have taken 

 from Professor Ray Lankester, the period is given as only 150 

 thousand years. 



Do you really feel that it matters very much whether you 

 accept his estimate or mine ? If you do, I most willingly 

 give way to him, although I much suspect that the reality 

 exceeded what we have either of us alleged. The great 

 point is that we should recognise that the periods during 

 which the earlier stages of human civilisation were enacted, 

 were almost inconceivably long. 



We have noted that you seem to wish us to attach much 



