On my way through Rouen, I stated my convictions on this subject to M. George Pouchet, who immediately betook himself to St. Acheul, commissioned by the municipality of Rouen, and did not quit the pits till he had seen one of the hatchets extracted from gravel in its natural position.* (* "Actes du Musee d'Histoire Naturelle de Rouen" 1860 page 33.) M. Gaudry also gave the following account of his researches in the same year to the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris. "The great point was not to leave the workmen for a single instant, and to satisfy oneself by actual inspection whether the hatchets were found in situ. I caused a deep excavation to be made, and found nine hatchets, most distinctly in situ in the diluvium, associated with teeth of Equus fossilis and a species of Bos, different from any now living, and similar to that of the diluvium and of caverns."* (* "Comptes rendus" September 26 and October 3, 1859.) In 1859, M. Hebert, an original observer of the highest authority, declared to the Geological Society of France that he had, in 1854, or four years before Mr. Prestwich's visit to St. Acheul, seen the sections at Abbeville and Amiens, and had come to the opinion that the hatchets were imbedded in the "lower diluvium," and that their origin was as ancient as that of the mammoth and the rhinoceros. M. Desnoyers also made excavations after M. Gaudry, at St. Acheul, in 1859, with the same results.* (* "Bulletin" volume 17 page 18.) After a lively discussion on the subject in England and France, it was remembered, not only that there were numerous recorded cases leading to similar conclusions in regard to cavern deposits, but, also, that Mr. Frere had, so long ago as 1797, found flint weapons, of the same type as those of Amiens, in a freshwater formation in Suffolk, in conjunction with elephant remains; and nearly a hundred years earlier (1715), another tool of the same kind had been exhumed from the gravel of London, together with bones of an elephant; to all which examples I shall allude more fully in the sequel. I may conclude this chapter by quoting a saying of Professor Agassiz, "that whenever a new and startling fact is brought to light in science, people first say, 'it is not true,' then that 'it is contrary to religion,' and lastly, 'that everybody knew it before.'" If I were considering merely the cultivators of geology, I should say that the doctrine of the former co-existence of Man with many extinct mammalia had already gone through these three phases in the progress of every scientific truth towards acceptance. But the grounds of this belief have not yet been fully laid before the general public, so as to enable them fairly to weigh and appreciate the evidence. I shall therefore do my best in the next three chapters to accomplish this task. CHAPTER 7. -- PEAT AND PLEISTOCENE ALLUVIUM OF THE VALLEY OF THE SOMME.