m 



the only one I ever met with, that gives a plausible sup- 

 port to the Volcanic Theory. •. <■,^^^ \\\;-;\. 



I will now proceed to examine the remaining facts, (thinly 

 scattered through Mr. St. Fond's voluminous works,) , that 

 seem, in the least, to apply to the present question,.,.,; |r 



He found, at Montbrul, basalt prisms, at, Avhat he calls, 

 die bottom of an old crater ; but, he adds, they developc 

 themselves much more behind the crater, where they have 

 formed a pav6 de Geans, des plus ekvees. (Vol. etein. 

 page 287.) 



Here it appears, by Mr. St. Fond's own account, that the 

 lava has risen far above the crater: of course, if this be 

 really a crater, (which I much doubt,) the pillars must have 

 been formed antecedent to the eruption, as in all other 

 cases. 



At Chenavari, he found a colonnade of prisms, which he 

 calls the remains of a vast crater, of which the greater part 

 has been ensevdie and abimee. I believe this, without further 

 proof, (than l:iis supposed revolutions,) will scarcely be ad- 

 mitted to be a crater. 



At Pont de Baume, Mr. St. Fond observed a range of 

 articulated prisms, supporting a stratum of a difterent va- 

 riety of basalt. This he calls a superb couke de lave; but, 

 unfortunately, he cannot determine from which of two cra- 

 ters it comes. (Page 300.) I fancy the reader will require 

 some little proof, before he admits it to have issued from 



either. 



On 



