H. H. Howorth—A Great Post-Glacial Flood. 367 
of the Ultra-Glacialists. In and under Bar Beacon, he describes a 
mighty mass of drifted quartz, gravel, and sand, with fragments of 
limestone, trap and coal-sandstone rocks as transported from Dudley, 
Rowley, etc. He traced the origin of the drifted gravels, coal, and 
sand, at Durham from the upper valleys of the Weir, and showed 
how in the Yorkshire vales, in Lancashire, Derbyshire, and Shrop- 
shire, we have gravels whose pebbles have in many instances come 
unmistakably from Cumberland. These transported gravels bear the 
same lessons on their face as those we have already read. The fact 
of their transportation involves an external impetus, and this could 
have been no other than water. “Before any particular masses of 
sand, gravel, or pebbiy clays can be pronounced to be of diluvial 
origin (says Phillips), and adduced in evidence as to the origin and 
operation of violent waters, it is indispensably necessary to show that 
under the present configuration of the surface, with ordinary measures 
of local watery forces, the accumulation of such masses is impossible, 
This can be shown if the component pebbles of the presumed dilu- 
vium can be referred precisely to the situation whence they were 
dislodged, and these situations are separated by natural obstacles 
from any part of the drainage hollows connected with the locality 
where the gravel is found” (Phillips’ Geology, vol. i. pp. 281 and 
282). This is most judicious, and basing our induction upon it, we 
can hardly fail when we trace the course of the so-called Cumbrian 
drift and gravel, whose pebbles are clearly from Cumberland, and 
which have overspread large districts in Yorkshire, Lancashire, 
North Wales, Derbyshire, and Shropshire, in invoking for its dis- 
tribution a flood of waters. As Phillips says, “It appears absolutely 
certain that none but oceanic currents are adequate to explain the 
extensive ravages of the solid land which produced and the violent 
currents which distributed the diluvium. Nor would the ordinary 
currents of the sea be adequate to the effect. It is requisite further 
to conceive that the sea was most violently disturbed, either over the 
points whence the detritus was brought (which supposes those points 
also to have been under the waves), or at some other situation. In the 
latter case, we may, perhaps, imagine so great a violence of water to 
be generated, as to permit the waves to be thrown to some height 
over the land; and it seems not impossible hereafter, when the 
geographical relations of the diluvium are well understood, to offer | 
some reasonable explanation of the whole matter, on the principle 
now known to be true of great and sudden changes of relative level 
of land and sea, which, though limited in the area of the masses 
moved, might have very extended effects through the agency of 
water” (Phillips’ Geology, vol. i. p. 298). This, which I had not 
seen when I wrote the paper on the Marine Drift, is assuredly a 
statement of the same arguments which I deem prove conclusively 
that that gravel which is continuous with the barren gravel now 
being discussed was distributed by precisely the same kind of great 
aqueous movement. 
Mr. James Geikie, who is a distinguished champion of Ultra- 
Glacialism, virtually endorses the argument, although, as usual, he 
