120 Mr. Farey’s Notes on Mr. Bakewell’s Geology. 
[P.182] but when the actual elevations of the different parts of the 
edges of the Chulk around this great denudation, are con- 
sidered, it will be seen, that @ Lake, in any great degree 
reviewing the progress in 1813, of his favourite Geognosy (Ann. of Phil. it, 
29), ascribes to Mr. Thomas Webster (but per aps rather erroneously?) the 
assertion, that the Parisian * new series of fletz Rocks, wiich appear to lie 
over the Chalk,” * constitute almost the whole of the sonih-eust corner of 
England.” Notwithstanding, that all the south-eastern coast between Foik- 
stone and Eastborne (a direct distance of 45 Miles or more. shows Strata 
that lie under the Chalk, and that the same thing occurs thence inland, as 
faras Farnham and Petersfield, (distances of 85 and 5° miies respectively), 
wituin which large denudated tract, it is impracticable to find any of the 
Parisian or London Strata, or even the Chalk on which they should he: 
but a quite different series of strata appear, dipping every where towards 
and passing under the nearest Chalk ranges. 
Another learned Doctor, who claims, I believe, to be still ‘* better edu- 
cated,” in the Wernerian subtilities, thinking perhaps (with an Edinburgh 
Professor, and Mr. B. P. M. xlu. p- 167) that the Section previously made 
across this district, formed principally on “ Stage-coach observations,” was 
utterly beneath the digaity of his Geognosy, and unworthy even of having iés 
most obvious fucts as above mentioned, attended to, or examined ; when he 
returned two or three ycars ago from a southern Geognostic Tour, presented 
an account (as Mr. Webster is stated by Dr. T. to have done). representing, 
as I was informed, the strata in this denuduted tract, whose places are 
really far below the Chalk Strata of its edges, as lieing above the Chalk! !. 
Tt was however then thought proper to strike this part of the Doctor's dis- 
coveries from his paper, before it was inserted in the Geo, Tran. vol. i. 
A very striking feature of the south-castern Denudation of England, and 
which my manuscript Section made in 1806, mentioned P M xiii. p. 167, 
was in a principal dezree intended to show, is the rise of the strata from 
the vale of the Thames at London, southward, toa strala-ridge line, rang= 
ing nearly E and W, which crosses the London and Brigiton Road at 
Hand-cross 35 Miles from London, and the contrary dip of the strata from 
this place to the Sea at Brighton; and also, that from the hames the 
strata hegin to rise again through Islington, from a strata-trough line, 
ranging along the vale of the Thames. In your xxxixth vol p. 272 Note,’ 
I have mentioned, that soine distance beyond Brighton, the strata rise again 
southward, from another sérata-trough line, whicn ranges thence be ween 
the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth, and proceeds westward into Dorsetshire. 
Which Jase Trough in the English strata, 1 investigated to a ceriain de- 
gree, near Portsmouth, and made a Section, of which I circulated several 
manuscript copies in the spring of 1812; which showed, that the notion 
so often published, of the Isle of Wight having been forcibly rent off from 
Hampshire, and the channel between them occasioned by the fissure or 
chasm thereby opened, was entirely without foundation, and that the 
Ts'e of Wight, was on the contrary, a hummock or part remaining, of the 
ridge in the strata, south of the trough above mentioned; and that instead 
of a chasm. the highest of the known British strata, in unbroken,continuity, 
occupies the bed of the Channel! and adjoining coasts of the Isle of Wight 
and Hampshire, as my other Section mentioned, had done with respect 
to the Thames Trough at London In your last volume, p. 395, Mr. 
Webster appears to have given the names of “ Isle of Wight Basin,” and 
‘London Basin,” to these two Troughs in the strata, that I had previously 
ascertained, as above mentioned. 
larger 
