C.—GEOLOGY 61 
appropriately the oubliette of the Castle of Science, and not on that of 
the banqueting-hall. As a result the guests had little opportunity of 
realising the true position. 
To change the metaphor, when everything seemed knit together in a 
stable framework, science, religion, social customs, even politics (for they 
too were more or less stable after the Napoleonic Wars), and the world 
that the ‘man with the monkey-wrench ’ was unwelcome ? Poor Lamarck, 
blind as the result of overwork, but still presenting his ideas through the 
pen of his daughter, and Hutton, the discredited agriculturalist, exerted 
little influence on their fellow scientists, let alone the general body of their 
fellow men. Even Playfair’s illustrations of Hutton’s views had no 
large appeal. 
The belief in a ‘ special creation’ for each type of plant and animal, 
and catastrophic disturbances in geological science are absolutely akin. 
Uniformitarianism and evolution are equally associated. It is not un- 
natural,therefore, that Lamarck adopted uniformitarian doctrines in his 
Hydro-géologie (1802) while Cuvier rejected them in his work. ‘The leaders 
of geology in this country belonged to the catastrophic school, save perhaps 
Macculloch, whom Lyell acclaims as his teacher.1® 
A summary of the geological problems of that date (1831) was the subject 
of Prof. Gregory’s address to this Section at our Centenary meeting, and 
I would now only refer you to that excellent statement for further informa- 
tion. One can see, however, the difficulty Lyell found in the mental 
atmosphere into which he launched his uniformitarian hypothesis. The 
idea was contrary to all the tenets held by scientists and the general public. 
He proved, however, a better advocate than Lamarck or Hutton ; but he 
had to fight against tremendous opposition and inertia. He succeeded by 
appealing again and again to field observations and a parallel method 
was required in dealing with fossil plants. 
Subsequent to Brongniart’s work, the study of impressions, or rather 
lssiscztions, of fossil plants was actively pursued on a stratigraphical 
basis, and the distinction between floras at different geological horizons 
became more and more evident. ‘Tabulation of results showed the general 
truth of Brongniart’s classification, and it mattered little whether the indi- 
: appeared to be working like a perfect piece of machinery, can we wonder 
evolutionary viewpoint. ‘The main object was to obtain records. Time 
and again these records were used to confute the rising tide of uniformi- 
tarian doctrines. Witham, in 1831,!? was delighted to point out that his 
_ fossil trees proved the presence of high types of plants in Lower Carboni- 
| vidual worker considered the plants as special creations or adopted an 
- ferous times ; and Hugh Miller, in 1849,18 puts the case much more 
powerfully. From a literary point of view Hugh Miller was the most 
_ powerful opponent of the ‘ progressive development ’ school of thought. 
_ He was also an indefatigable field worker, so that, while he made his 
opponents prove every step they took, it cannot be said that he was an 
opponent of research. His general attitude seems to be typical of the 
16 Proc. Geol. Soc., 1836, vol. ii, p. 359. 
17 Witham, Observations on Fossil Vegetables, 1831. 
18 Miller, Foot Prints of the Creator, 1849, p. 201 et alia. 
