90 



NA TURE 



{Dec. 4, 1873 



has, doubtless, been a severe blow to that school, as it has 

 been a loss to all who admired a straightforward, cour- 

 teous, and undaunted antagonist. 



Other members of the party have, however, in more or 

 less direct ways, lifted up their voices of protest. I 

 select this evening one of these antagonists, partly because 

 he has spoken more and more energetically than any 

 other, and partly because a good deal of his speaking has 

 been directed against myself. And here 1 am sorry that I 

 must begin by a reference to a matter of personal history. 

 In the summer of 1S65 I published a little volume, now 

 out of print, on " The Scenery of Scotland, viewed in 

 connection with its Physical Geology." The object of 

 that work was to show how completely the Huttonian 

 doctrine of earth-sculpture was borne out by the moun- 

 tains and valleys of the northern part of this island. I 

 distinctly disclaimed any novelty or originality on my 

 own part in the broad doctrine which I tried to enforce. 

 My veneration for Hutton and Playfair had been from 

 boyhood profound ; again and again in the pages of my 

 book I quo;ed them, and spoke of them as the founders 

 of the school to which 1 professed myself a loyal adhe- 

 rent, and in which I could boast such friends and col- 

 leagues as Jukes and Ramsay. 



I was well aware, and stated in the preface, that the 

 views to which 1 had been led " ran counter to what are 

 still the prevailing impressions on this subject," and that 

 I was prepared to find them disputed, or thrown aside. 

 Convinced, however, of their essential truth, I looked 

 forward to a time when what might then be regarded as 

 mere dreaming would be established as a recognised part 

 of the groundwork of geology. The views put forward 

 in the volume met, indeed, with an amount of general 

 acceptance which I could hardly have anticipated. But 

 at length the e-xpected opposition made its appearance. 



On February 3, 1S68, his Grace the Duke of Argyll 

 read to the Geological Society of London a paper, en- 

 titled " On the Physical Geography of Argvleshire, in 

 connection with its geological structure." Although that 

 title was chosen, the paper proved really to be from be- 

 ginning to end a criticism of my little book, which, in- 

 deed, the author candidly acknowledged to have served 

 him as " the best text he could find." 



To that paper I made no reply. It seemed to me that 

 the noble author had failed to perceive the bearing of the 

 whole argument from geological waste, as proved by 

 geological structure. His objections being already, in my 

 opinion, anticipated in the book which had called them 

 forth, I did not see how I could make my case plainer by 

 any amount of additional argument. But further, his 

 Grace had begun his communication with a sentence in 

 which he stated that the views set forth by me " seemed 

 to be gaining ground with the younger school of geolo- 

 gists," — fatal admission, as it occurred to me, for I felt 

 that what was called the younger school must eventually 

 take the place of that which styled itself the older, and 

 that if it remained true to its belief, the views which were 

 now called in question would carry the day without any 

 battling of mine. Every month shows more fully the 

 justice of this anticipation. 



I was content to let the matter rest ; nor would I recur 

 to it now, but for the following reasons. Since that time 

 the Duke of Argyll has become President of the Geolo- 

 gical Society of London. In his recent address, and in a 

 separate communication to the Society, he has returned 

 to the subject of the origin of the present features of the 

 land, referring to his former paper as "an argument which 

 had not been met by any answer in detail," and adheiing, 

 therefore, to the views there expressed. As to the non- 

 appearance of any " answer in detail " from myself, I can 

 give no other explanation than that I considered my little 

 book sufficiently detailed for its purpose, and believed 

 that it already anticipated and answered the argument of 

 my opponent. That is still my belief. 



But a broad challenge addressed to the general body of 

 geologists by the President in the official Address which 

 he annually gives to the Society and the world, is not the 

 same thing as a criticism from one member of the Society 

 upon the work of another member. In the interests of 

 science, therefore, it seems to me that some protest is 

 now called for against doctrines promulgated at this late 

 date in the century from so high and honourable position 

 as the Chair of the Geological Society of London ; 

 and as I have been especially singled out for attack, it 

 appears to me to be only an act of duty to vindicate, not 

 my own position merely, but the reputation of that 

 " younger school " which is accused of seeking to pervert 

 the geological mind from the ancient and true creed. If 

 these doctrines maintained by the President were to be- 

 come generally diffused, which, happily, is now impossible, 

 they would suffice to paralyse research in one important 

 branch of the science ; for, as far as relates to the histoiy 

 of the configuration of the land, they would assuredly 

 bring down upon us again the pre-Huttonian darkness. 



No one whom the Geological Society of London has 

 chosen as its President can fail to command the respectful 

 attention of geologists all over the world. And while I 

 gladly acknowledge this right, I would also express the 

 gratification whicn is widespread among the brethren of 

 the hammer in this country that the Duke of Argyll, in 

 the midst of so many and so onerous, as well as honour- 

 able duties, should find time to take a lively and active 

 interest in the progress of geology. 1 admire, too, the 

 vigour with which he wields his pen, and the boldness 

 with which he gives his judgment among disputed ques- 

 tions. He has once more thrown down his geological 

 gauntlet, and if 1 venture to take it up, and accept his 

 battle, it is in the full consciousness of the presence of an 

 adversary who, while dealing hard blows himself, will 

 take in good part such buffets as the fortunes of war may 

 bring to him. 



I have already alluded to the natural impression that 

 when we look at a region of rough mountains formed out 

 of hardened and contorted rocks, we behold m the exter- 

 nal outlines the direct results of the subterranean force 

 by which the rocks were altered and crumpled. This 

 obvious inference is far older than the days of geological 

 inquiry. But surely its mere obviousness is no argument 

 for its truth, any more than the rising and setting of the 

 sun prove the earth to be the centre of the universe. In 

 the volume already referred to I spoke of it as " dealing 

 with that dreamland of conjecture and speculation lying 

 far beyond the pathways of science, where one has no 

 need of facts for either the foundation or superstructure 

 of his theory. It thus requires no scientific knowledge or 

 training ; it can be appreciated by all, and may be applied 

 to the history of a mountain chain by one to whom the 

 very name of geology is unknown." But to recognise 

 that this common and instinctive notion is yet a mislead- 

 ing one, requires an acquaintance with geological structure 

 which comparatively few have an opportunity of obtain- 1 



ing, and which appears to be not always readily acquired 

 at second-hand. I have watched the current geological 

 literature on this question during the last decenniuiTi, and ' 

 the result has been to convince me that the notion, or ! 

 rather the prejudice which I am combating, is in some 

 minds so deeply rooted that it cannot be got rid of by the 

 reading of any number of books or treatises, and, of 

 course, still less by the writing of them. Simple as may 

 be the statement of the leading principles and facts 

 relative to that waste of the earth's surface to which the 

 term Denudation is applied, there is yet, I firmly believe, 

 no part of geology more difficult adequately to realise. 

 So striking are the difference and contrast between the 

 magnitude of the results adduced and the apparent insig- , 



nificance and impotence of the forces which are alleged i 



to have produced them, that the mind not unnaturally j 

 hesitates to associate the one with the other in the rela- 



