42 The Origin of the 



from it — can that be supposed the only formation 

 which may claim such an origin ? The thought is 

 startling, but it may be balanced, on the other hand, 

 by a question based on the alternative theory. For, 

 considering those numerous successive strata and 

 various formations, miles and miles deep in the globe's 

 solid crust all the earth over ; and, admitting the 

 deepest stratum containing vegetable remains to have 

 been once the surface of the earth, then whence has 

 the earth acquired those miles in depth of succes- 

 sively superimposed matter ? Of the denudation of 

 what conceivable mountains are these strata the 

 detritus, extending as they do in enormous depth 

 over the whole earth ? I find the depth of the 

 earth's stratified deposits stated by Dr. (now Sir J. 

 W.) Dawson, after Professor Hamsay, at 72,000 

 feet, that is 13it miles ; and by another geologist I 

 find the fossiliferous strata alone stated to be over 

 six miles in depth. Now Mount Everest, the highest 

 point of the Himalayas, and as yet the highest in the 

 known world, is 29,002 feet high — slightly over 

 five miles. The denudation of occasional mountains 

 of this and various other heights, and of ordinary 

 cliffs of lower elevation, great as it confessedly has 

 been, could not possibly furnish detritus six miles 

 deep, or anything approaching even half that depth, 

 over the wide world. Whence then this enormous 

 and wide-spread deposit superimposed on the lowest 

 level of fossils which indicate the ancient surface ? 

 Has not the earth received according to this an 

 accretion of six miles to its radius since then, — 

 twelve miles to its diameter ? or say, if you please, 

 it were even half that amount ? Is there not some- 

 thing in this to favour the thought of accretion from 

 without ? But an increase of radius would cause in 



