341 
No writer has entered more minutely into this subject 
than Mr. Phillips, and as his works are in general circulation, 
I will refer to them as explanatory of the line of argument 
adopted by those who entertain the diluvial theory. In the 
first volume of his Treatise in the Cabinet Cyclopaedia, he 
discusses at much length the subject of drift and erratic 
boulders, and after detailing the localities and appearances 
assumed by the drift, he gives his judgment in favour of its 
having been removed by a sudden rush of water ; but when 
he seeks for a cause by which the required quantity could be 
thrown over the land, he is obliged to assume the existence of 
forces of which we have not the slightest evidence.* A line 
of argument which requires such support, should not be 
received without the exercise of great caution; and I never 
read this section without the conviction that it must be unsa- 
tisfactory, even to its author. 
Let us, therefore, enter into an examination of some of the 
difficulties which beset our inquiry, — and first, as to the 
direction which the boulders have taken. Some of them are 
of so marked a character, that we can determine with ease 
the rock from which they have been severed; and although we 
find that their general course has been from the north or 
north-west, yet that direction is by no means universal. 
According to Mr. Phillips's own showing, blocks of the pecu- 
liar granite of Shap Fell are found to the north and east of 
that mountain, proving the existence of some other force than 
a current of water from the north. One of the most noto- 
rious is in the main street in Darlington, (60 miles due east.) 
and as it weighs nearly two tons, we cannot ascribe the direc- 
tion of its course to an accidental eddy. 
Another embarrassing circumstance is the fact, that in 
many instances the boulders have pursued their course from 
the parent rock, with little regard to the obstruction which 
* See Cabinet Gyclopaudia, vol. II., page 272. 
