A. H. Hunt — A Vindicatioti of Bacon, Huxleij, and others. 265 



Van Hise concluded, moreover, that the heat produced by any- 

 superincumbent mass of strata, i.e. mere burying, is inadequate to 

 produce the results observed. 



That the conditions imposed on the marble by Messrs. Adams 

 and Nicolson may be imitated in Nature with sufficient nearness 

 to produce closely similar results, may be taken as established ; but 

 it does not follow necessarily that such conditions imposed upon 

 a quartzite would result in the production of a quartz schist. The 

 pronounced cleavage, the habit of twinning, and the softness of 

 calcite allow of a comparatively easy adaptation to altered circum- 

 stances ; hence marble no doubt readily shows the effects of pressure 

 and heat. 



Not only so, but we have frequently to deal in Nature with a rock 

 which instead of being a homogeneous aggregate of grains consists 

 of two or more minerals, the physical properties of which are very 

 different. Apply to such great pressure, accompany it by heat, 

 and limit freedom of movement, then we should expect greatest 

 plasticity to be found in that constituent whose point of fusibility 

 was most nearly approached ; and rupture, in varying degree, 

 in the remainder. Since a quartzite or a quartz felspar grit is an 

 obdui'ate rock, we must infer pressure and temperature to be 

 increased beyond the limits assigned them in Messrs. Adams and 

 Nicolson's experiments, if similar results are to be produced. 

 A cataclastic structure is not a characteristic of a true schist ; hence 

 we must rely on heat, and heat plus watei', to play the greater part 

 in the reconstruction ; while to pressure may be imputed the 

 flattening of the individual grains and the foliation. 



In the Delhi quartzites we appear to possess an example of the 

 work of the two former agents, in the Canadian grits of all three 

 oombined. 



IV. — A Vindication of Bacon, Huxlicy, Darwin, and Lyell. 

 By Akthuk E. Hunt, M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S. 

 rpHE recent attempt I have made to show that the absolutely 

 J_ unanimous adverse criticism of Dean Buckland has arisen 

 from a misapprehension of the facts of the case, has led me to 

 enquire further whether the same cause may not account for far 

 more important results in other similar cases, e.g., the attacks of 

 Huxley on Bacon ; of Lord Kelvin on Huxley ; and of Lord Kelvin 

 and Professor Sollas on Lj'eil : attacks which cannot fail to lead 

 the unlearned to believe, not that the critics are right, but that all 

 are wrong together, and unworthy of attention. 



Having been geologically educated from first to last on the 

 principles of Bacon and Lyell, I have been genuinely mystified 

 by the intense aversion of Huxley to Bacon, as evidenced by 

 a remark made in 1878 : "I have been oppressed by the humbug 

 of the ' Baconian induction ' all my life, and at last the worm has 

 turned." Now, if ever there was a genuine Baconian it was 

 Huxley himself, as the following extracts taken in order of succession 

 from Bacon's "Novum Organum " will suffice to prove : — 



