THE AGE OF THE LAST UPRISE OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 193 



take it for granted that the sea level is a permanent and fixed level 

 and that any alteration of level must be due to the movement of 

 the land. But now some continental geologists have been raising 

 the question whether this is to be accepted as definite, or not, and 

 have even thought that it may be from a shrinkage of the crust of 

 the globe, a diminution of radial extent of the globe, the distance of 

 the centre of the globe to its mean surface, which might so take 

 down the level of the surface of the sea. It seems to me that the 

 paper of Professor Hull has a very direct bearing on that question 

 and entirely disproves it, and I may say corroborates the theory of 

 Lyell ; for if this alteration of level, of say 25 feet and so on, takes 

 place in a very short time, that cannot possibly be due to any 

 diminution of the general level of the sea, for no shrinkage of the 

 globe could give such a diminution of the general level of the sea in 

 so short a time. The shrinkage of the globe, if it goes on (and 

 Lord Kelvin advocates that, and I have the temerity to oppose it 

 and I say there is no evidence of that or of the cooling of the globe) 

 is entirely based on a priori reasoning. At Oxford, some years ago, 

 I brought forward very strong evidence to show that there has been 

 no cooling of the globe and no alteration in the general temperature 

 of the globe since the Cambrian period. So I consider this paper of 

 Professor Hull's is an exceedingly interesting and important one, 

 and I hope it will draw attention to this controversy and tend to 

 establish the position I have, as a geologist, always held, that the 

 mean level of the sea is constant, and that it is the land that rises 

 and falls, and not the sea. 



Professor Orchard. — Our thanks are due to the learned author 

 of this able paper for the interesting subject he has brought 

 forward. 



Some of us may have been a little surprised, and even startled, 

 by the idea that since the time of the Roman occupation there has 

 been an uprise in these British Islands. It is really but another 

 illustration of the fact that there is nothing stable underneath the 

 sun. 



Eeference has been made to the antiquity of man and to the 

 universal deluge. With regard to the antiquity of man, the 

 scientific world generally, I believe, now credits the view that there 

 is no evidence of the existence of man on the earth earlier than after 

 the close of the glacial period. That has been put, I think, pretty 



