294 Reply to Mr. Ailan's Observations [Apric, 



stronger degree. But I, at the same time, stated that tliis is not 

 the pro[)cr test of the merits of either system, but that we must 

 try them by a standard totally different. What that is I need not 

 repeat. 



INIr. Allan " frankly tells" me his opinion respecting the merits 

 of the " two great men," Hutton and Werner. And here I am 

 again under the disagreeable necessity of differing from him. I do 

 not think the hypothesis of Hutton is " founded on observation 

 and pure philosophic inducdon ;" 1 look upon it as 'a. fanciful 

 *' contrivance totally unauthorized by all t!ie great," as well as the 

 small " features in nature." He says 1 ought to know that the 

 phenomena of nature are " totally and entirely" (I suppose these 

 two words mean much the same thing) " irreconcilable to the theory 

 of Werner: so much so, indeed, that my own master, the pupil 

 of W^erner, has, as a sacrifice due to common sense, been com- 

 pelled to introduce many alterations in the system he was taught at 

 Freybcrg." Mr. Allan's sagacity ought to have taught him that 

 tiie principles of Werner are, as I said before, founded on induc- 

 tion, and must therefore appear under a different aspect, in pro- 

 portion as discovery advances. Professor Jameson therefore, to 

 wliom Mr. Allan doubtless alludes in this sentence, has not been 

 compelled to introduce " alterations as a sacritice lo common sense.'' 

 He has only, like a man, not merely of common sense but of un- 

 L'ommon genius for, and attainments in, his science, applied the 

 Wernerian principles of arrangement to the discoveries that have 

 been lately made. Your observations in a note on Mr. Allan's 

 paper, (p. Ill), appears to me unquestionably just. For 1 consider 

 the systems of Hutton and Werner as standing to one another, itj 

 inuch the same relation as the astronomical systems of Des Cartes 

 iind Newton. 



Mr. Allan assures me " he never will intentionally mis-state 

 any fact, and that he is not very likely to volunteer his opinion on 

 a subject he does not comprehend." With regard to the first 

 clause of this sentence, I do most sincerely believe him. I never 

 once said nor thought, as 1 formerly declared, that he would " in- 

 tentionally mis-state a fact. But with respect to the last clause, 

 1 confess my faith is not so firmly fixed. I do not perceive de- 

 cisive proof of the proposition in the geological works of Mr, 

 Allan. He would have me •' feel ashamed " of saying tliat h*; 

 laid stress on the opinions of the vulgar; and tells me that " the 

 Cornish miners are a set of people much beyond the class in whicli 

 I seem desirous to include them." I never doubted that the 

 Cornish miners are a most respectable and intelligent '*' set of 

 people," nor had the slightest idea of throwing any disparagement 

 upon them. But Mr. Allan himself calls them " the common 

 people," and yet I appeal to every reader whether he does not brinix 

 in their opinion in confirmation of his own upon a matter of 

 science. If bhanie then have any thing to do witli him and me, i 



