THE FORMATION OF FJORDS. 61 



more than before — that the explanation I then gave, if not exact lv 

 the true one. is at least nearer the truth than the one opposed to it- 

 It is with a view to recapitulate these arguments, and not with a 

 view to bolster up a theory, which niust eventually stand or fall on 

 its own merits, that I ask a place in the Society's transactions for 

 these additional remarks. The question is not so much whether 

 fjords were hollowed out by glaciers, but simply a renewal of the 

 contest between the rival schools of " catastrophists," who believe 

 that all the great physical features of the world have been caused 

 by some cataclysm or cataclysms of Nature ; and of " uniformi- 

 tarians," who teach that the uniform and long-continued action of 

 the forces at present acting on the earth's surface would be suffi- 

 cient to account for many features hitherto ascribed by their rivals 

 to huge throes of Nature. The whole subject has been discussed 

 over and over again, and all the main arguments which have been 

 brought to bear against this particular application of the uniformi- 

 tarian doctrines, have been advanced against some other application 

 of it, in explanation of other physical features. Nor have the 

 supporters of the contrary view been backward in replying ; and 

 the whole matter stands in statu quo, or as the leanings of physical 

 geologists bear to one side or other of the controversy. Foremost 

 and chief of the school of catastrophists was our distinguished 

 President, and our Transactions almost yearly bear witness to the 

 skill, eloquence, and learning with which he has enrphyyed the 

 weapons of his party against the adherents of the opposite view. 

 . Originally, when he visited the Arctic Regions for the first time 

 ten years ago, a disciple of Sir Roderick in this country, and of 

 von Buch in Germany, the present writer must confess that addi- 

 tional observation and more extensive travel have led him to desert 

 to the enemy. The paper mentioned is a result of his studies 

 under the new banner, and these further remarks must be taken as 

 his justification of the faith that is in him. The arguments brought 

 against him both by Sir Roderick and Mr. Tayler are so nearly 

 identical, so far as they go, that he may be permitted to reply to 

 them conjointly. Had, however, Mr. Tayler waited until the 

 publication of my complete paper, ho would have, spared himself 

 and the Society some of his remarks, which his impatience for what 

 seemed an easy victory has induced him to advance against the im- 

 perfect statement of my case in the fragmentary report published 

 in the ' Proceedings.' Unfortunately he commences his arguments 

 by entirely misunderstanding my views. 



1. Glaciers and Fjords. — When Mr. Tayler says thai he "take- 

 it for granted " that by "hollowing" I mean causing fjords 1o bo 



