212 
REVIEWS. 
selves satisfied with the evidence; and secondly, because we believe that 
onr countrymen are quite prepared to look fairly into the question, and 
to adopt any conclusion which the facts may require. They are right, 
however, in throwing the onus jprobandi on the assertors, and in requir¬ 
ing satisfactory proofs before they accept a discovery which seems to 
contradict the general tenor of previous investigations. They do, 
indeed, in this but follow the example which has been set before them. 
Sir Charles Lyell admits that even among Geologists “ extreme re¬ 
luctance was felt to admit the validity of such evidence,” and where 
Philosophers have hesitated so long, the unscientific public can hardly 
be expected to follow immediately. This is particularly the case with 
reference to the cave evidence. We must not be surprised if our coun¬ 
trymen do not at once adopt the conclusions of Dr. Schmerling, when 
we know that for a quarter of a century his observations were entirely 
disregarded by Geologists, and that not “even the neighbouring pro¬ 
cessors of the University of Liege came forth to vindicate the truth¬ 
fulness of their indefatigable and clear-sighted countryman.” So 
again, when Dr.Palconer and Mr. Pengelly tell us that in the Brixham 
Cave, and close to a flint instrument, they found the entire skeleton 
of the left hind leg of a Cave bear, every bone being present, so that 
the limb must have been carried into the cave, while the separate 
bones were still bound together by their natural ligaments ; we who 
know these two gentlemen, who have had many opportunities 
of testing both their truthfulness, and, what is of equal importance, 
their accuracy, naturally feel a confidence in their statement, which 
we cannot expect to be equally shared by the general public. 
Since, indeed, Mr. Prestwich dug out the flint implements of 
M. Boucher de Perthes from the neglect in which they were lying, 
and established their great antiquity, not only by the Mammalian 
remains with which they were associated, but by the geological posi¬ 
tion which they occupied, the proofs of Man’s antiquity have multiplied 
so rapidly, that we are inclined to wonder that Geologists should have 
hesitated so long, and this is evidently felt by Sir Charles Lyell, 
who seems to look back almost with astonishment at his own 
incredulity. And yet, if left to themselves, the Geologists would 
not perhaps even yet have relinquished their old creed. Portunately, 
however, the Zoologist and Philologist were working in the same 
field, and the three encouraged and assisted one another. As any 
one of them made a step in advance, he was immediately supported 
and even driven forward by the other two, and as we shall presently 
see, though the Geologist is apparently leading the way, the Zoolo¬ 
gist is really in advance, and claims for Man a higher antiquity than 
even Sir Charles Lyell can at present bring himself to admit. 
The Saturday Eeview has truly observed, that the present “ work 
“ is a trilogy, the constituent elements of which should be headed 
u respectively, Prehistoric Man, Ice, and Darwin.” On this occa¬ 
sion we shall confine our remarks almost entirely to the first of 
these subjects. The glacial chapters, indeed, give an excellent 
resume of the present state of our knowledge, and strike us as 
