332 
I presume that the sections on the wall have been taken from measure- 
ment ? 
Professor Hughes. — They were sketched by the eye when standing at a dis- 
tance, and to make the diagram clear the vertical heights have been exaggerated. 
Mr. C allard.— I certainly saw the locality different. You have got the 
height equal on the right and left. 
Professor Hughes. — The view you have taken is froma different line of sight. 
The Chairman. — I think it would be better to allow Professor Hughes to 
answer any remarks that may be made at the end of the discussion. 
Mr. Callard. — I had two friends with me, and we were not casually 
looking about, but were there for the purpose of examining the valley, 
and I am prepared to say that the opposite side [pointing to the map] 
was not sufficiently high to allow the river to touch the place where 
the implements were found. If you admit there has been some altera- 
tion in the contour of the country, some change in the level of the land, 
then I say all the data for the argument from erosion is gone ; but with the 
contour of the country the same as now, if I were on the spot with Professor 
Hughes, I think I could convince him that the river never could have 
touched the place where these implements were found. (Applause.) 
Mr. T. Jones. — I would ask permission to make a remark. Some 
years ago a shock of earthquake was felt all along the coast of Wales, 
and so marked was the tremulation of the earth that at the Greenwich Observa- 
tory the telescope was seen to rise and fall. On the following morning the 
observer found that the time at which he had seen the instrument rise and fall 
agreed with the time at which the earthquake was travelling along the coast of 
North and South Wales. Now, this being so, it seems very possible that 
there may be occasional changes in the contour of the country so affected, 
and that after a shock of earthquake the land does not revert back to exactly 
the same level it had before, if this be so, it seems to me that it has a tendency 
to disturb the erosive principle that has been contended for. 
Mr. J. Thornhill Harrison, F.G.S. — I do not agree with the author of 
the paper when he says that the peculiarities of the Glacial and recent periods 
cannot be explained by the occurrence of cataclysms, but upon this question 
I cannot now enter. I would call attention to the raised beaches in the 
West of England and on many parts of the coast, and suggest that in 
times past the tide rose in the Exe, the Teign, the Axe, and very probably 
in the Thames and other rivers, to a much higher level than it does at present, 
owing to the altered configuration of the coast by the encroachment of the 
sea. I consider the valleys of these rivers were formed by other processes of 
nature than the erosive action of the water falling within the river basins 
and flowing down their channels. (Hear, hear.) 
Rev. G. Henslow, F.G.S. (a visitor). — I think the discussion has been 
somewhat diverted from the subject of the paper, which is “The Antiquity 
of Man,” as far as the best evidence is concerned. The last speakers seem 
rather to have entered on the question of physical geography. Most of 
them have criticised Professor Hughes’s remarks ; but I should like to say 
