126 
they are all-important upon this question : as to whether this is palaeolithic 
man we are dealing with. Bear in mind that in the palaeolithic period we 
only find chipped flints of rude design, and we have got behind the time of 
pottery and bone implements. I do not blame Dr. Southall, he quotes what 
others have said ; but I repeat that the things spoken of are not palaeolithic 
at all, and that the district over which palaeolithic implements are found is 
very much more limited than this paper would lead you to suppose. Dr. 
John Evans, who is perhaps the greatest authority on this question, pub- 
lished in the year 1872 a book on the flint implements of Great Britain. He 
said there had been no trace up to that time of any flint implement of the 
palaeolithic type being found north of the river Ouse and its tributaries ; and 
Mr. Flower, in a paper read before the Anthropological Society in the 
same year, stated that the farthest north at which any of these implements 
had been found was in the Wash, and in its neighbourhood. I think 
the argument in this paper would have been stronger if Mr. Southall could 
have said that flint implements were found everywhere except in those 
places he has named, where the ice may have been supposed to have kept 
man out. But it is not so. If I were asked where flint implements are to 
be found I should say : “ In the gravel and in the gravel drift, and nowhere 
else.” They are found in the Somme Valley — this one came from the Somme 
Valley ; — they are found in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, but it is in the 
gravel again ; in the Ouse they are found, but still in the gravel ; in Norfolk 
and Suffolk, at Brandon and Hoxne they are found, — indeed, wherever 
found it is always in the gravel or the gravel drift. Palaeolithic man 
was unlike neolithic man, who travelled about and carried his imple- 
ments with him ; palaeolithic man, if there was such a being, and you must 
allow me the doubt, made his implements in the gravel, and where he made 
them there he left them, and not one has been found anywhere else. Such 
being the case, it gives me some ground for raising the question whether the 
non-finding of the implements in Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in Scotland, 
was not owing to the fact that there was no man to take them there, and that 
neolithic man is the first evidence we have of man at all in Europe. (Cheers.) 
Rev. J. James. — There is one remark I wish to make as to the way in 
which many geologists when making their calculations have ignored other 
sciences. Astronomy, no less than some other sciences, ought to be token 
into account by them. It certainly should, I think, be considered the great 
sin of modern men of science that they limit themselves to a particular branch 
and ignore all others. Physical scienco they boast of, and they confine them- 
selves to it, whereas it seems to me to be not a matter of boast but rather 
of shame that they should ignore the other recognized sciences. 
Rev. A. F. Mam. — I wish to make a few remarks, in the capacity of an 
inductive rcasoner, as criticising the conclusions at which scientific men 
have arrived on this question. It seems to me that the induction has 
been altogether too narrow, that it has been confined to a certain class of 
phenomena to the exclusion of others. Mr. Callard has fittingly said 
that astronomical data bear very importantly upon this question, and 
