38 
into the real history of this inquiry, I think I could show that there 
has, upon the contrary, been great resistance on the part of the scientific 
men to the acceptance of the views they now entertain, and that these 
views have only been forced upon them by the weight of evidence. (Hear.) 
A Roman Catholic priest, Mr. J. MacEnery, worked out the subject 
thirty years ago. He found flint implements in Kent’s Hole associated 
with the bones of extinct animals, and he wrote an account of t e 
discovery and had plates drawn, which he sent up to Dr. Buckland. 
What did Dr. Buckland say ? How did he treat the matter . Di e 
at once bring it out as a grand new scientific discovery,— as one that he 
welcomed and was glad to put before the world? On the contrary, he 
persuaded Mr. MacEnery to keep the matter quiet ; and the result was that 
his paper did not appear until after Mr. Prestwich’s researches in the valley 
of the Somme had brought the matter before the scientific world m a manner 
that was not to be resisted. Did the researches of M. Boucher ae Perthes 
meet with approval in the first instance ? * Why, nobody thought anything of 
them until Dr. Falconer, while passing through the neighbourhood in which 
M. de Perthes’ museum was, thought he might as well take a look in, and 
there he found that which satisfied him that there really was something 
worthy of investigation. Did Sir Charles Lyell show any disposition to 
accept heretical conclusions, when he visited the caverns of Liege, 
five-and-twenty years ago, and found human bones in the same deposit 
and condition of penetration by minerals, as the bones of extmct animals . 
When the professors there pointed out to him that there was just the same 
evidence of antiquity in the human bones as in the others, did he accept their 
reasoning 1 No ; but he blamed himself ten or fifteen years afterwards for 
his incredulity. He said, “ I ought to have accepted that evidence,” and he 
regretted his' former want of belief when the later testimony was flashed 
upon him. Did one of the scientific Englishmen, who went over to Abbeville 
to discuss that question of the human jaw, show himself desirous to bring 
forward heretical opinions, when they all took the side of those who were 
endeavouring to prove, and who did prove, ultimately, that that jaw was a 
* M. Boucher de Perthes does not seem to have been withotit his own 
doubts upon the subject, for we read in his Antiquites CeltiqUes, tom m. 
p 11 : — “J’y voyais des haches, et je voyais juste mais la coupe en etait 
vague et les angles ^mousses ; leur forme aplatie diff4rait de celle deshaches 
polies, les seules que l’on connut alors ; enfin, si des traces ^ travail s y 
r6v61aient, il fallait r^ellement, pour les voir, avoir les yeux de la ioi. Je les 
avais mais ie les avais seul : ma doctrine s’6tendait peu, je n avais pas un 
seul disciple” “ I traced the hand of man in the hatchets, and I judged 
rightly, but the proof of the workmanship was dubious, and the 
blunted ; the broad shape of the tools differed from that of the polished 
hatchets which alone were then known. In short, if the traces of human 
work were to be seen, it was indispensable to the perception of them to have 
Te eyTof foith. I had them, but I alone had them. My opinion found 
little favour ; I had not a single disciple.”— [E d. J 
