The Ohalk and its Dislocations. 311 
water where the icebergs were floating to be lifted on to the back 
of any iceberg? A notion that has been gravely propounded, namely, 
that they rolled down from exposed cliffs, ignores the wide area of 
inland country far from any coast where they occur, and the utter 
want of evidence that there were either cliffs or scarps of chalk 
available from which the masses could have been detached. On the 
contrary, as we have seen, the most notable of the chalk masses, 
namely, the chalk cakes, still have the remains of the Crag sea in 
which they lay attached to them, and we have no evidence whatever 
that any of the Chalk in Norfolk was above the sea-level when the 
dislocation took place. 
It seems plain, in fact, that ice in any form, either as an ice-sheet or 
as icebergs, could not have dislocated and distributed the chalk masses 
as we know them. ‘The hypothesis is at every point inconsistent with 
the facts. 
This virtually means that no known cause acting from above the 
Chalk was competent to produce the observed effects, and we are 
necessarily limited to the only alternative cause, namely, some sub- 
terranean force of great energy. Such a force is the one whose 
destructive ruin we so often witness on a limited scale in contem- 
porary earthquakes. As has been shown, earthquakes are marked 
by actual waves of energy passing through the solid ground, 
as similar waves pass through the water, and which have the 
tendency and result when the energy is sufficiently potent to curve 
the strata through which they pass into a series of anticlinal and 
synclinal curves, such curves, in fact, as we find in the Chalk of 
Northern Norfolk and as we find on a much greater scale in the 
North and South Downs. While this particular phenomenon of the 
present contour of the Norfolk Chalk seems quite inexplicable by 
any exercise of force from above, it seems completely explainable 
by those earth-waves which accompany earthquakes, and to which 
the most orthodox geologists are quite anxious to appeal when it is 
a question of explaining the arched, twisted, and torn condition of 
the crystalline rocks of primitive times. It seems extraordinary that 
professed Uniformitarians should be so loath to apply the lessons of 
those early geological times to the Pleistocene age. 
The result of such a movement in dense beds of stratified material 
like chalk must, when the tension was sufficiently great, have caused 
a vast breakage of the beds, and the broken masses would have the 
raw edges and torn surfaces we notice in the chalk masses. Not only 
so, but it seems to me it is the only conceivable way in which the 
tabular masses of chalk with the stratified material adherent to them 
could have been detached from the main mass of the chalk. The 
process would resemble the homely one of the detachment of a con- 
centric layer from an onion by lateral pressure. All pressure or 
pounding from above must necessarily have smashed up such fragile 
materials beyond recognition. 
So much for the only reasonable explanation of the bending and 
breaking of the Chalk of Norfolk which, as it seems to me, is available. 
Let us now pass on to another chapter of the story, namely, that 
connected with the transport and redisposition of the chalk masses. 
As we have seen, the Chalk, when the dislocation and breakage took 
