Reviews— E. P. MaJet—'' Sunlight:' . 421 



proof of heat in the snn, nor that this earth was ever hot ; but that 

 the " solids contracted and subsided in their necessary gravitation, 

 and the waters certainly subsided with the bed they rested on. As 

 the entire solid body could not possibly sink into a smaller space 

 than it occupied, it followed that the water sank into the lower 

 levels of its bed, and left ridges and islands all round the sphere to 

 form the dry land." This sinking of the ocean-bed is one of the 

 main contentions of the author : " the process has been going on 

 ever since organic life began; therefore we find the relics in our 

 •quarries, mines, and on our mountain tops." It is needless to 

 criticize these statements, for although made by one who has read 

 or consulted some standard geological works, he has evidently failed 

 to grasp the principles and philosophy of the science. We can only 

 lament the publication of 'books of the class to which " Sunlight " 

 belongs, for they are calculated to do much harm to those who 

 cannot discern fact from fiction. The author, quoting remarks of 

 Mr. Fronde, asks, "How many times must we outsiders learn our 

 science and then unlearn it ? Each generation of philosophers 

 laughs at the conclusions of its predecessors." In questions relating 

 to Cosmogony science is naturally speculative, and the most eminent 

 men differ on many points ; but it is curious to find the author 

 quoting from that " lover of truth," Dr. Kinns, and criticizing some 

 of his statements about the early history of the earth. 



We do not find so much fault with the author for his quotations 

 to show how various geologists " ancient and modern " differ one 

 from the other on speculative matters ; we find most fault with his 

 own geological (?) teachings. The following quotations will suffice 

 to justify our lamentations. "It is asserted that rocks are scratched, 

 grooved, and polished by ice-friction." And the author proceeds as 

 follows, "I have examined many of these places, and take a type in 

 Lucerne. The polishing was all done by running water ; the small 

 scratches and the larger grooves were all done first by sand and 

 water _: then as they increased in size gravel and pebbles made them 

 into grooves. Some of these follow bends in the rock, which ice 

 could not have done." Again, in reference to Caverns, the author 

 remarks, " To prevent any confusion, I divide caves into three heads 

 — First, those that have been excavated by man or beast ; secondly, 

 those that have been washed out by water ; thirdl}^ those that have 

 been built on a centre or nucleus." In reference to the third cause 

 for caves he goes on to say, " They are built as a nucleus on a 

 centre support, and are similar in history, but not in extent, to those 

 coal-fields which have ocean deposits over each seam." While, how- 

 ever, we take exception to these and many other statements, we 

 entirely sympathize with one sentence in the work before us, " We 

 require correct data to start from, before puzzling students of natural 

 history by one thing to-day and another to-morrow, thus throwing 

 cosmogony into chaos, and making scientific teaching untrustworthy." 



