We are aware that our diploma of capability will be demanded, especially by geologists; for geological savans are rather imperious in their demands of credentials; a knowledge of chemistry, mineralogy, botany, and zoology, are amongst the qualifications deemed essential even in a novice in this science, and if these demands are made of the student, how much more will they be made of the critic? Well, we are free to confess that these qualifications we possess not; the only department in geology of which we claim any positive knowledge is the lithological, or that gained from the experience of a working miner. But as in all other science, so in geology, there are facts and phenomena which come within the sphere of common experience and observation; so it is to the facts. and phenomena which are within the ken of all who will be at pains to observe, that we wish to direct the attention of the reader in this article. However we may fail in the execution of it, our desire is to give honour to whom honour is due. We admit that in reference to the subject in hand we have our prejudices, which perhaps arise from a rather extra development of the conservative element, which the experience and observations of many years tends to strengthen and protrude in our character. Other men as well as Socrates have their attendant demons, though all perhaps not equally good, as we believe that there are both good and bad demons in the domains of spiritual ministration; but as our good angels seldom if ever assist us in coming to generous and catholic conclusions, we respectfully pass them by, and only refer to those demons that bother and trouble us, viz., "The man of progress," "The door spiritualist brothers," and the "geological developist." These demons do sometimes haunt, yea, actually vex us, and as one of them is personally connected with the subject of this article, if we are not so genial and polite in our remarks and criticisms as we should be, let the reader exercise due forbearance in consideration of our difficulties and prejudices.

However we may abhor the theoretical geologist, this does not destroy our respect for the practical geologist. The reason why we have named Mr. Page's work at the head of this article is that we may testify our approbation of his book, for it contains much of fact, little of theory, much of the sure, little of the doubtful. It is pre-eminently rich in facts and known principles. It is the multum in parvo of geological science as far as yet developed, and its practical application is, Work, observe. To all geological students we recommend Mr. Page's book as the best we know of for its size and price. We are sorry we cannot pay the same tribute of respect to the "Antiquity of Man," Sir C. Lyell's last work. Perhaps to no one man is geology more indebted than to Lyell, who has not only written much, but who has travelled extensively, and been an observer as well as recorder of facts. Lyell's works are

valued especially for the great number of facts they record. But it does not necessarily follow that the observer is the generalizer proper or the true father of science in the highest sense. There were many astronomical observers and recorders prior to Newton, but it was the genius of Newton which alone could perceive the silken threads of truth issuing from all the facts of astronomy, and his mind alone which could take these threads and by them bind all the facts in true scientific unity. As an observer and recorder of facts we honour Sir C. Lyell; as a true scientific generalizer we repudiate him. And why? Because the dubious he has classified as the sure; the unknown as the known; the indefinite as the definite; or rather, from facts the causes of which he acknowledges to be dubious and indefinite, he tries to infer the sure and the definite. The logician who should predicate the characteristics of the infinite from the known of the finite would be now laughed to scorn: so will the logic displayed in "The Antiquity of Man" be held in derision by all men of strict and legitimate habits of thought. The writing and publishing of this book at the present time is proof that Sir C. Lyell has forfeited the dignity of the philosopher. The book is written for what?-to prove that man possesses an antiquity unvouched in the records of ancient history, and never yet dreamt of by philosophers. What are the facts upon which this assumption is founded, and from which this inference is inferred? They are flints and bronze instruments, pottery, shells, canoes, &c., found in peat begs, deltas, and lakes. Now all these monuments of antiquity are nothing except the exact period can be determined during which they have been entombed. But even Sir C. Lyell acknowledges that this cannot be done; he only approximately calculates, and his approximations vary from tens to thousands of years; thus he attempts to set aside the settled periods of history, by those that are less sure and less definite. Are these reasonings in harmony with the deductions of a true philosopher and the principle of inductive science? Surely not; the true philosopher will never remove the accepted until he has something more sure to put in its place. Are the stone hatchets and bronze implements of Mr. Lyell more sure historians than those in whom we have hitherto confided? Is Mr. Lyell sure that the stone and bronze instruments were not contemporaries, instead of pre and post? Has Mr. Lyell by his geological chronometers ascertained the exact historical era of the globe in which his historians lived, and the exact date when their works were deposited in the natural museums where now found? Can Mr. Lyell tell us the exact age of a peat bog, and the time required to deposit a stratum of gravel, sand, mud, and peat, or rather can he prove that these beds, which we think he improperly calls strata, could not be deposited by one single deluge, and that to continue for a very limited period? Until Mr. Lyell has

answered these and many other questions of a similar nature in a more satisfactory manner than he has done in his last work we intend still to confide in Moses and Herodotus, and hold Mr. Lyell's book one of the most unphilosophical books ever published. That Mr. Lyell has a right to his own peculiar views on any subject in science and to publish those views we admit; but has not truth, science, and society equal claims upon him? This much we think must be allowed, that for a man of Mr. Lyell's position to publish a book that invades and despoils the eras of sacred and profane history, and that work based upon facts with no definite historical date, is an act to be condemned by the principles of true science and the moral demands made by truth and justice upon public teachers. If truth and science can accept the indefinite instead of the acknowledged, accepted, and definite, and if they believe that such teachings are in accordance with the well-being of rational and moral beings, then Mr. Lyell is justified-but if not, truth and science must condemn the teaching contained in "The Antiquity of Man." When Lord Palmerston yields to his natural propensity for drollery and banter he detracts so much from the dignity of the statesman; just so, Mr. Lyell by attempting to invade the definite epochs of history by the indefinite epochs of geology has lost the dignity of the philosopher. Though lovers of geological studies and more so of geological rambles, yet we give it as our opinion that the science of geology, if science it may yet be called, is only in its embryo state; it cannot yet be called infancy proper; a great number of facts have been accumulated and brought together, and, as far as outward characteristics go, have in some measure been classified: yet of the inward principles of life and power how little is known! When we gaze on the facts of geology we see the indications of life and power, and also recognize similarity in different parts of the outward organism; but what the exact form of that organism or science will be when fully developed who can tell? That geology will become an established science we doubt not, but if we understand the term science aright it is not one yet. Science implies a collection of facts which point to a certain power and law as their cause and antecedent, which antecedent explains the facts, and the facts harmonize with the cause or antecedent; but where is the power, principle, or law that explains and harmonizes the facts of geology, that is, the power, law, or principle? We are aware that nearly all the physical powers operating in nature have been pointed unto as causes and antecedents, and perhaps properly so, but in reference to a definite phenomenon, which be they? for a phenomenon said by one geologist to be produced by chemical influence, is said by another to be produced by simple pressure. The parallel road of Glen Ray, said by the majority of geologists to be produced by glacier action, is said by one professor to have been

Now these difmany, which, in when the true whole science as

produced by a deluge from the western ocean. ferences are not in mere secondary points, but in our opinion, are vital in theoretical geology, and cause is ascertained may perhaps revolutionize the it regards its fundamental principles and laws. Phrenology has been pronounced as non-scientific from the highest chairs and confederations of which science can boast, and we think justly; but the doctrine that the brain is the organ of the mind, to us explains and harmonizes more phenomena in human nature than any geological theory we have yet seen does in relation to the phenomena of the stratification of the globe: so even in the year 1864, we think that even the high priests of geology need not be conceited above measure, for Dr. Burnet No. I, with his sacred theory of the earth, may yet find a successor in Dr. Burnet No. 2, with his profane theory.

As our title indicates, we think that geologists assume too much, and in their assumptions violate even the dictates of common sense, and the results of common observation. The first instance that we note in which we think this is done is, that all present theories of stratification are only formative and not accumulative. We might have added not creative, but as this point enters the domains of Theism, and touches the great mystery of the origin of being, we keep it in abeyance; but perhaps both professor and critic will agree that stratification does not increase the quantity of matter in the universe; therefore whether matter was created or eternal, does not alter the point in hand.

Now geological theory, as to the source from whence matter to be stratified was obtained, may be thus stated :

1. All traps, basalts, &c., have, by volcanic action, been brought from the interior of the globe or below the stratified rocks.

2. All limestones are of marine origin, and have been formed from the ocean by organic power and chemical influence.

3. Coal, and all strata of a similar nature have been formed from vegetable organisms.

4. All sandstones, shales, and nearly all the conglomerate strata, are neither of volcanic, marine, nor vegetable origin, therefore the matter that enters into their composition must have been derived either directly or indirectly by the denuding influence of heat, cold, wind, rain, &c., operating on the granitic cones existing in mountain masses or elevated above the first sedimentary strata.

Now all persons who know anything at all about geology know that sandstones and shales form by far the greatest bulk of stratified rocks, and by the above theory it is evident, First, That as they are neither of volcanic, marine, nor vegetable origin, the only source assigned is the granite and the means of obtaining denudation. Secondly, That it is only that part of the granitic

cone that is elevated above the first sedimentary deposits upon which the denuding elements could operate, for as soon as ever the first sedimentary rocks were laid on the granitic floor, the only part of the cone on which the denuding influence could operate was that above, and our present object is to prove that all known granitic cones in the world could not produce one tithe of the matter found in the sandstone and shales of the globe. The problem, as it appears to us, may be thus stated. The matter contained in the granitic cone above the first sedimentary strata given on the one side, -given on the other side the matter contained in the sandstone, shales, and conglomerates deposited by sedimentary influence :required, the difference between these two quantities. The very statement of the problem appears to us to be its solution, for the granitic cone when compared with the sedimentary strata to be accounted for is so insignificant, that one wonders that ever the theory could gain an existence. Let any geologist or any clodhopper compare dispassionately the sandstone and shales of the United Kingdom with the granitic cones found in the Welsh, Cumberland, and Scottish mountains, and see if he can be so credulous as to believe that the former have been derived from the latter. The thickness of the different rocks in the carboniferous series has perhaps, from natural development and mining operations, been more accurately ascertained than any other series of rocks in the stratification of the globe; and as we are more intimately connected with the carboniferous rocks by a life residence, it is to these that we first and more particularly refer. In the carboniferous series alone there are no less than 1,230 yards, or 3,690 feet, thick of sandstones and shales, and when we consider the vast area which they overlay, in addition to their thickness, need we go further to prove that the matter contained in these strata could never have been derived either by denudation or any other influence or agency from the granitic cones of our island? The fact seems to us to be that in the sandstone and shales of the carboniferous series alone there is more matter contained than in the whole bulk of the granite hills themselves; and when in addition to the sandstones and shales of the carboniferous system we add those of the Silurian "old red,” “ new red," permian, lias, oolite, wealden, &c., &c., right up to the latest formations, we gain a knowledge of such a mass of matter as shows the impossibility of its having been derived from the source assigned to it by geological theory. Should the objector to these views refer us to the other granitic cones of Europe, Asia, America, &c., from which this matter might possibly be obtained, we refer him to the large extent of sedimentary strata found at their base and on the plains surrounding them; in fact, the proportion of granite to the sedimentary strata of these regions is perhaps less than in the British islands.