But it is not to the known and visible hills that the geological theorist refers when working out his problems, but to imaginary cones and mountains of any height, to oceans and estuaries of any extent, and floods and deluges (Noah's excepted) in any number. To these we have often been referred. Whether science will admit their existence or no we stay not to inquire. We know that common sense, even if admitting the possibility of their existence, will not admit their existence as evidence in the case under consideration. In addition to the hills, plains, valleys known to geography, we know only of valleys filled with water, or our present lakes and oceans, but whether ever these valleys were mountains we know not, or whether they are granitic we know not, no more does the geologist, and because unknown we object to them as evidence to disprove the known. This is the logic taught us by common sense, and if false and non-scientific, we should like to know in what particular part.

In the preceding remarks there is one fact which must be kept in view, viz., that it was from that part of the granitic cone elevated above the first sedimentary deposit, and from that alone, the denuding agencies could bring the material of deposit; and as the present angle of elevation proves that these cones could never have contained much more matter than they now contain above the first deposit, the inference forced upon us is, that all the succeeding agencies could do after the deposition of the first sedimentary strata, was to take up the material of one series for the formation of another, or thus to take up the denuded matter of the Silurian and deposit in the Devonian, to retake it again to the carboniferous, and so on to the end of the series; so according to the current geological theory, the creation of one series is equivalent to the destruction of the one that preceded it, for some of the later series actually contain a greater thickness of matter than the one preceding.

This difficulty has sometimes been encountered in trying to account for the extra abundance of one particular substance in a particular series, as, for instance, in trying to account for the abundance of magnesia in the magnesian limestone. Professor Sedgwick says, "All the magnesian beds in the carboniferous limestone would be quite insufficient for the purpose;" but the difficulty of accounting on the same principle for all the sedimentary strata as being derived from the granite seems never to have entered the mind of the professor.

Our space forbids us entering more fully into a statement of evidence as to the relative proportions of granitic to sedimentary matter, but if we state the available granitic as 10, and the sedimentary as 100, we are sure that we are vastly within the limits of their true proportions, and any theory that professes to derive

100 from 10, the integers in both sums being of equal value, if not false in a scientific point of view it is so in the light of com

mon sense.

It may be asked, what is lost or gained to geological science even if the above reasonings are true? We answer, first, that the geologist loses a theory. The stratification of the globe proves that from and above the granitic floor the operations of nature have been accumulative, and that wherever the extra matter has come from, it has not come from the granite hill. Secondly, That geologists also lose a part at least of their infallibility, and this is something gained in favour of common sense. We have often wondered that the influence of this principle never led the geologist to look either above or below the granite, or both ways, for that common store-house whence material has been brought to supply at least the greatest portion of the matter in all the geological series. If suitable matter can be found in the granite for the formation of all the succeeding strata, whence, it may with equal reason be asked, was the granite itself derived?

The second instance in which we think that geological theory violates the dictates of common sense is that it teaches that the present powers, order, and conditions of nature are sufficient to account for all the phenomena of past stratification.

In the statement of this, our second position, we add two remarks, the first in relation to geologists, for we wish it to be understood that the above theory is not held by all geologists, though it is held by Sir C. Lyell and a great many others; in fact, the tendency among geologists generally is to account for all the phenomena of past stratification by the present order and condition of things. Our second remark is in relation to ourselves. believe that the present powers of nature are sufficient to account for the above-named phenomena in certain conditions but not in their present conditions.

In reading geological works nothing is more frequent than to meet with passages similar to the following. "As in lakes, so also in estuaries and seas; and as by the agency of rivers, so in like manner by the action of waves, tides, and ocean currents which are ceaselessly abrading the sea coast in one district, and transporting the debris to another, where it is spread out in layers all less or more horizontal. In process of time, according to the matter of which they are composed, the degree of pressure to which they are subjected, and the amount of chemical change their particles may undergo, these layers become hard and stony, sand being consolidated into sandstone, gravel into conglomerate, mud into shale, and so on of other ingredients. As at present, so in all time past, similar deposits in water must have taken place," &c., &c. "Advanced Text Book," p. 41.

From the above teaching it is to be understood that strata are

now being formed in the bottoms of lakes and oceans just as they have ever been from the beginning. But the absurdity of this position will be, we trust, as apparent as the one already examined.

That accumulations are being spread out on the floors of our present lakes and oceans we admit, but that their nature, order, and extent are anything like the depositions of the ancient strata we deny. The sedimentary depositions of all denuded material imply, I, the elevated eminence of denudation; 2, streams, rivers, &c., or the agents of conveyance; 3, lakes or oceans of deposit. The conditions of deposition are, 1, gravity; 2, currents of water; 3, water in a state of comparative stillness. Now, should the first and last conditions alone have been in operation the deposition would have been in this order, 1, gravel or conglomerate; 2, sand or sandstone; 3, mud or shale; 4, coal or organic strata, and one layer would be found deposited above another; but in all depositions of the present time we know that the second condition, the current of water or conveying agent, is in invariable operation, and therefore the deposition cannot possibly be so much one strata above another as one beyond another. For gravel will be deposited at the entrance of the lake or estuary, sand beyond, and mud beyond again; therefore to all depositions now being formed the terms near and distant are far more appropriate than above and below, for we know of a surety that at the entrance of all lakes and oceans no river can possibly deposit mud on the gravel or first deposit, neither can the conglomerate gravel be spread over the whole floor of deposit, or much beyond the influence of the current of conveyance, and whether the second deposit, sand, can be so or not is very questionable. Thus we attain to a certain order of deposition, and also one that nature in her present conditions cannot reverse. She cannot deposit the conglomerate on the sandstone, or the sandstone on the mud or shale, nor the shale on the vegetable organism, but has not this been done in the deposition of the ancient sedimentary rocks, and without any apparent change in the conditions of the depositing agents? Does not the sandstone rest on the shale or mud, and the shale on the limestone, sandstone, &c., and do not all these overlay the deposits of the remains of organised matter? Thus the depositions of sandstone and shale, and their alternations with each other and the other stratified rocks, as exhibited in the older depositions, we unhesitatingly affirm cannot be accounted for or satisfactorily explained by the known agencies of nature operating in their present conditions. No mechanical theory can account for the position, &c., of the former sedimentary rocks. The facts of the case demand more, not only heat but chemical action in all its diversity of operation, and this diversity of action beginning to operate not merely after that, by mechanical action, the matter

of deposition has been arranged on the floor of the ocean as it is alleged is now being done, but operating at the period of disintegration. Could mechanical power alone have selected the right elements at the right time, or laid aside the argillaceous and calcareous elements when the arrenaceous or sand was being deposited, or the arrenaceous and calcareous when the argillaceous or shale was being deposited, or the arrenaceous and argillaceous when the limestone was being deposited? To talk of mechanical agency alone accounting for the origin and arrangement of the matter deposited in the older strata is mere child's play, and to point to the deposition of mineral springs, the Geysers of Iceland, the coral beds of the Pacific, as being at all comparable to the deposits of the Silurian, Devonian, carboniferous, and other series is equally so. Even Mr. Page, from whom we quoted to prove that geologists teach that stratification is now going on at the present time, confirms our views by contradicting himself, for he says that "we know almost nothing of what is now taking place at the bottom of the ocean;" and when speaking in reference to present deposits, or the deposits of the Nile, Niger, Ganges, Mississippi, &c., he says, "We have here a complex set of agents-rivers, tides, waves, the drift from inland, the drift from the sea, and the growth of plants and animals in situ-all these conjoined render estuary deposits extremely perplexing and irregular in their compositions, and though in general terms they may be said to consist of mud, clay, sand, gravel, and vegetable debris, intermingled with organisms of terrestrial, fresh water, and marine origin, yet scarcely two of them "Advanced Text Book," par. present one feature in common. 312, page 243, Now what can be more convincing of the unsatisfactory teachings of geologists than such passages as the above? The one telling us that sedimentary strata are now being formed at the bottoms of our lakes and oceans as of old, the next telling us that "we know almost nothing of what is now taking place at the bottom of the ocean," and what we do know of the deposits of the present time shows them to be chaotic and confused, and therefore cannot properly represent the stratification of the past, except disorder be the proper symbol of order. So much for the agencies of the present being sufficient to account for the facts of the past.

Another point to which we refer in proof of the position that we have taken, that the assumptions of geologists violate the dictates of common sense is the results given by the chronometers used by geologists in the measurement of geological epochs and periods. Mr. Lyell stands out rather conspicuous and noted as a time measurer, "Sam Slick" himself never dealt in or used more wonderful clocks than Mr. Lyell. Whether Mr. Lyell's clocks have been manufactured by the veritable" clockmaker" of " Slicksville,"

and even

we leave for our readers to find out; but one of the most remarkable clocks used by him he found in America, near Niagara, and if mis-measurement be a characteristic of "American clocks," this one is decidedly American, though we believe our old and respected friend "Slick" would decidedly object to its having come from his establishment.

We do not object to geological chronometers, or their use, providing they be properly and modestly used. One of the simplest of these and most easy to be understood and to apply, is the deposition of sediment in lakes by the streams that flow into them. The rule given for practical application is this-" Divide the mass of deposited material by the rate of annual accumulation, and an (approximate) answer in years is given to the question, How long is it since these streams began to flow in their present course?" By this argument De Luc arrived at the conclusion that the present condition or state of things on the globe has only been in existence a few thousand years. This argument of De Luc, says Professor Sedgewick," when kept within proper limits is unanswered and unanswerable." But De Luc is not to be compared with Mr. Lyell as a time measurer, that is, if amount of time or years has to be the standard of eminence.

From the Delta of the Nile Mr. Lyell proves that a brick found therein was 12,000 years old, that is, he proves it by accepting the quasi-evidence of another, and in the same way he proves that part of a brick found below the level of the Mediterranean was 30,000 years old (" Antiquity of Man," pp. 37, 38); and by his renowned American clock he proves that the falls of Niagara have existed at Niagara, and the present drainage of the American continent continued, for a period equally long. In the " Antiquity of Man," he tells of a skeleton found in the Delta of the Mississippi, which a certain Dr. Dowler calculated had been deposited 50,000 years (p. 44). But Mr. Lyell is most amusing, and perhaps the most scientific, when he uses the "peat moss chronometer. Speaking of a peat bog in Denmark, he says that Steenstrup and other good authorities estimate that the time required for its formation would amount at least to 4,000 years; and there is nothing in the observed rate of the growth of peat opposed to the conclusion that the number of centuries may not have been four times as great (p. 17). Now this is amusing enough-one should think that the findings of a chronometer which can be augmented at pleasure by the square of the number given, cannot be of much value, and we do think that the man who can deal in such data as we have given from his book (and we aver that in the reading of it we did not find anything much more substantial in the shape of evidence), if he stand high in the circles of science, he would be repudiated in the circles of common sense. The "peat bog" chronometers,