212 Rise of' Scandinavia considered. 



\y ; a change of level in the sea only will not explain the pheno- 

 mena. 



A quarter of a -century has now elapsed since Mr von Buch 

 declared his conviction that the surface of Sweden was slowly 

 rising all the way from Frederickshall to Abo ; and added, that 

 the rise might probably extend into Russia. Of the truth of 

 that doctrine the presumption is so strong, as to demand that 

 similar experiments and observations should be instituted and 

 continued for a series of years in other countries, with a view to 

 determine whether any change of level is slowly taking place in 

 these also. The British Association for the Advancement of 

 Science have already obeyed the call. A committee has been 

 appointed to procure satisfactory data to determine this question 

 as far as relates to the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland, and 

 I cannot but hope that similar investigations will also be set on 

 foot along the coasts of France and Italy, and eventually be ex- 

 tended to many of our colonial possessions. 



The inductive arguments in favour of the elevation of land, 

 whatever the size, and whatever the amount of rise, are founded 

 chiefly on the following circumstances: — 1. The height of sedi- 

 mentary beds and marine bodies, whether corresponding or not 

 to those of adjacent seas, or of the actual globe. % The height 

 of terraces resembling sea-beaches. 3. The height of ripple- 

 marks. 4. The change of posture which horizontal strata un- 

 dergo in the neighbourhood of " unstratified rocks." 5. The 

 various heights at which the same rocks occur in different parts 

 of their course. 6. The anticlinal posture of strata frequent 

 in, though not confined to, mountain chains. 7. The arched or 

 domed configuration of some strata. 8. The occurrence of co- 

 ral, apparently recent, high above the present surface of the sea. 

 9. The position of ancient buildings, viz. the temple of Serapis 

 at Puzzoli, &c. I have not time to consider these arguments in 

 detail ; each deserves to form the subject of a separate treatise. 

 Some of them prove, not elevation, but only change of level, 

 which subsidence would explain equally well. Some prove lo- 

 cal disturbance, whereby one portion may have been thrown up, 

 the other down. Some, again, afford a fair presumption of real 

 heal elevation or ascent. Most of them are good to a certain 

 point : all are continually overstrained \ and I am frequently 



