E. Wilson — Age of the Pennine Chain. 501 



In many ways this prominent feature in the physical structure 

 of our island is worthy of notice. It has had a great deal to do 

 with the distribution of the mineral wealth of the North of England, 

 and if, as one result of that elevation, a vast amount of valuable 

 Coal-measures have been swept away, still many mineral substances 

 of great economic value have been brought within our reach, that 

 would otherwise have been hopelessly buried in the bowels of the 

 earth ; while we are at the same time indebted to this ancient 

 earth-movement for that bold and beautiful scenery, moorland and 

 mountain, scar and dale, that characterizes the Pennine Chain in its 

 range through the counties of Derby and York. It is not, however, 

 from an economical or an aesthetic, but from a physical point of 

 view, that I propose to consider this ancient mountain chain. In 

 particular I seek to arrive at its age. 



The age of the Pennine Chain has long been a matter of doubt and 

 debate among physical geologists. While all are agreed that the 

 upraising of this great anticlinal took place before the Triassic epoch, 

 the question still remains whether it was or was not also Pre-Per- 

 mian. In 1861, Prof. Hull stated his belief that the Pennine Chain 

 was elevated into land during the deposition of the earlier Permian 

 strata. 1 In 1868, however, the learned Professor had come to the 

 conclusion that this earliest upheaval took place between the close 

 of the Permian period and the commencement of the Trias, " that it 

 belonged to that period of general stratigraphical disturbance which 

 marked the close of the Palaeozoic age," 2 As a rule, geologists 

 appear to have been content to follow in the wake of so high an 

 authority. 3 Several years ago my local rock studies in the adjoining 

 county of Nottingham led me to believe that the Pennine Chain 

 was older and not younger than the Magnesian Limestone, and sub- 

 sequent observations have tended to fortify me in that opinion. Let 

 us first, however, examine what is to be said in favour of the 

 opposite view. 



The chief, if not the only item cited by Prof. Hull in support of 

 a Post-Permian upheaval, is the supposed identity in origin (in 

 Lancashire, Cheshire, and Staffordshire) of two important lines of 

 fracture respectively known as the Anticlinal Fault and the 

 Bed Eock Fault. 4 The Anticlinal Fault and the Eed Eock 

 Fault run meridionally (approximately) parallel with each other 

 and with the Pennine Chain. Professor Hull, therefore, concludes 

 that all three were the results of a common movement : The Anti- 

 clinal Fault near Leek passes under Bunter (conglomerate) with- 

 out faulting that rock, therefore this common movement was 

 Pre-Triassic ; the Eed Eock Fault near Stockport faults Permians, 

 consequently this common movement was Post-Permian. But, 



1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xvi. p. 63. 



2 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiv. p. 323. Triassic and Permian Kocks, p. 

 111. Coal-fields of Great Britain, 1873, p. 468. 



3 Geol. Mag. 1872, p. 389; 1879, p. 110; "West Yorkshire, p. 9; President's 

 Address to Geological Section, British Association Meeting, 1879. 



4 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxiv. p. 323. 



