362 Darwin and Geology 
they must have done, if they were to be tilted, convoluted, or over- 
turned by gradual small shoves. He never, however, explained his 
theory of original flexibility, and therefore I am as unable as ever to 
comprehend why flexibility is a quality so limited in time. 
“Phillips then got up and pronounced a panegyric upon the 
Principles of Geology, and although he still differed, thought the 
actual cause doctrine had been so well put, that it had advanced the 
science and formed a date or era, and that for centuries the two 
opposite doctrines would divide geologists, some contending for 
greater pristine forces, others satisfied, like Lyell and Darwin, with 
the same intensity as nature now employs. 
“Fitton quizzed Phillips a little for the warmth of his eulogy, 
saying that he [Fitton] and others, who had Mr Lyell always with 
them, were in the habit of admiring and quarrelling with him every 
day, as one might do with a sister or cousin, whom one would only 
kiss and embrace fervently after a long absence. This seemed to be 
Mr Phillips’ case, coming up occasionally from the provinces. Fitton 
then finished this drollery by charging me with not having done 
justice to Hutton, who he said was for gradual elevation. 
“T replied, that most of the critics had attacked me for overrating 
Hutton, and that Playfair understood him as I did. 
“Whewell concluded by considering Hopkins’ mathematical calcu- 
lations, to which Darwin had often referred. He also said that we 
ought not to try and make out what Hutton would have taught and 
thought, if he had known the facts which we now know.” 
It may be necessary to point out, in explanation of the above 
narrative, that while it was perfectly clear from Hutton’s rather 
obscure and involved writings that he advocated slow and gradual 
change on the earth’s surface, his frequent references to violent action 
and earthquakes led many—including Playfair, Lyell and Whewell— 
to believe that he held the changes going on in the earth’s interior to 
be of a catastrophic nature. Fitton, however, maintained that Hutton 
was consistently uniformitarian. Before the idea of the actual 
“flowing” of solid bodies under intense pressure had been grasped 
by geologists, De la Beche, like Playfair before him, maintained that 
the bending and folding of rocks must have been effected before their 
complete consolidation. 
In concluding his account of this memorable discussion, Lyell 
adds: “I was much struck with the different tone in which my 
gradual causes was treated by all, even including De la Beche, from 
that which they experienced in the same room four years ago, when 
Buckland, De la Beche (?), Sedgwick, Whewell, and some others 
treated them with as much ridicule as was consistent with politeness 
in my presence.” 
