280 
“strangely enough, they have.” “Well,” I said to Dr. Southall, “ please 
take note of these questions and answers.” I do not wish to lay an undue 
stress on all this, hut we are bound to look at it as reasonable men, and my 
firm conviction is, that out of the thousand flint implements in M. Boucher 
de Perthes’ Museum nine hundred at least are forgeries, and the rest 
doubtful. When you come to other museums in different parts of the 
country, and see numbers of implements with M. Boucher de Perthes’ 
name upon them, one would naturally suppose that that proved the authen- 
ticity of the flints ; but, from what I have told you, you will see that it is 
nothing of the kind. I am not doubting M. Boucher de Perthes; I am merely 
representing that he has been taken in. I have never been able to find one 
of those unquestionably humanly formed paleolithic implements, nor have I 
been able to find a man of authority who has taken one of them out of the 
gravel himself. Perhaps some gentleman present may have been more for- 
tunate than I, and it may be too much to suppose that all these implements, 
we have in such numbers, have been forged. About nineteen years ago a 
geologist of Cambridge, who was determined that he would not be taken 
in by the workmen, went out with a pick-axe to work by himself. 
He searched for three days and found five implements. This would 
have been conclusive ; but, in the note he sent along with the 
implements, he stated in a postscript : “ I am thoroughly con- 
vinced that every one had been put there for me to find.” Those 
five implements were washed, and it was found that each of them had 
been covered with ochre to give the proper appearance. It does not 
follow that because there have been these deceptions there has been 
deception in every case. Still, I say, there is enough to make us cautious, 
and not be too ready to admit that the flints are artificial, unless we know 
they are modern, and in that case there need be no question about them. 
There is one other point I would refer to. The subject of the paper is “ The 
Origin of Man.” Was man created, or was he developed ? At a recent 
meeting a very learned paper was read in which a Mr. , the author, 
clearly defended the hypothesis that man was developed; but to make it less 
unpalatable he put it that this was done “ under control,” to show that it 
was not an atheistical question with him. He thought there was God in 
it. I urged upon that occasion that it was not possible that man could be 
descended from the anthropoid ape, as Mr. contended ; that if man 
came from the anthropoid ape that animal must have produced man. Man, 
by the admission of all geologists, is post-Glacial ; it is also acknow- 
ledged that there has not been time since the Glacial epoch in which 
the ape could have become man. Therefore, if man was descended 
from the ape, it must have been from some ape which immediately 
preceded him ; consequently, we are driven to the conclusion that, if 
man descended from the ape, the ape must have lived through the 
Glacial period. I tried to show that that was impossible, and gave evidence 
from Darwin himself, from Thomas Belt, and from Wallace, of the existence 
of a cold climate, even up to the Equator —so cold that the glaciers had 
