330 
to find that with the usual candour and skill with which Professor Hughes 
deals with all geological subjects, he has cleared away to-night some of the 
supposed evidences of the antiquity of man, and brought us down to two or 
three important points, which we can discuss much better than if we had to 
be thinking of Swiss lakes and kitchen middens, and going here and there 
for evidence. (Hear, hear.) He has cleared the way a great deal, and 
shown that the antiquity of man, as far as we yet know, does not extend 
so far back as has been thought by many scientific men. I would, however, 
make this remark, that Professor Hughes has dismissed any discussion with 
regard to the flint implements before us, in what I think rather too 
rapid a manner, because I certainly have not been able to understand on 
what ground he says, so positively, that they are of human workmanship. 
They may be ; but, on the other hand, we may be deceived in forming such 
a conclusion. (Hear, hear.) The Brandon gravels have been referred to, 
and I have here some flints from the Brandon gravels. May I trespass so 
far as to ask Professor Hughes if this one, with the point broken off, is in 
his judgment, an implement ? (Showing it to Professor Hughes.) 
Professor Hughes. — Certainly, I should accept it as such. 
Mr. Callard. — Here is another from St. Acheul. Would you accept 
that as an implement ? 
Professor Hughes (examining it). — No. 
Mr. Callard. — You accept one flint readily, the other you as readily 
refuse to accept ; but I think that if they were handed round the room, 
there are very few gentlemen who would be able to see much difference 
between them. This [referring to a third one] I picked up on the surface 
of the soil near St. Acheul, and I see no reason to believe it to be of human 
workmanship ; but, at the same time, I think it looks as much like the 
work of man as the flint you have accepted as an implement from 
Brandon. 
Professor Hughes. — Respecting the third specimen, it might have been 
made by man, or it might have been the result of accidental fracture. I 
could not be certain. My reason for thinking that man might have made 
the one and that he never made the other I will state when I reply, and I 
will then point out what constitutes the difference between them to my eye. 
Mr. Callard. — That some of the best specimens have the appearance of 
being made by man I readily admit ; but seeing that the naturally fractured 
ones so nearly resemble them, it would suggest the need of great caution in 
pronouncing any specimen to be of human origin in the absence of 
collateral evidence. There is a flint which you accept at once ; now hero 
is another, exactly like it, which never has been out of its matrix, and which 
man could not have made. These are the things which make me say, we 
must pause before we decide that man has done this or that. If man has not 
made these implements, then of course the whole argument falls to the ground, 
as far as evidence from the gravel is concerned. Then, again, Professor 
Hughes has taken it for granted that the river Somme cut the Somme 
valley. Now, I certainly should not take it for granted. I have been 
