EETIEWS. 
403 
least knowledge of geological theory would have saved our critic from the 
trouble of antagonizing the notion that mountain formation and that of the 
volcano are identical or analogous. Lvell stated that there is an intimate 
connection between the two classes of phenomena; and Elie de Beaumont, 
at least forty years ago, attributed mountain formation not to partial vol- 
canic action, or a reiteration of ordinary earthquakes, but to the secular 
refrigeration of the entire planet. Dana, Mallet, and all advanced teachers, 
follow this theory. The author demurs to the present rise of land. There 
is no doubt that whilst there is evidence of the rise of land in Scandinavia 
during the post-glacial and during the historic period, it is not a continuous 
operation ; but the fact that there is no positive evidence of the rise of land 
in Sweden at this moment does not militate against the well-observed facts 
cited by Lyell. All evidence is not of the demonstrative kind ; if it were 
science would be dark enough ; but there is truth in the Butlerian axiom 
that probable evidence may approach demonstrable and even moral certainty. 
"With, regard to rivers cutting down gorges in rocks, the author states 
that they cannot do it, and that they did not do it, the river course being the 
result of cracks, faults, and fissures. He protests against the limestone cliffs 
of Yorkshire and Derbyshire being created by “watery erosion.” Now, 
supposing that he knows the difference made by geologists between cliffs 
and escarpments, he need not be astonished at being told that inland cliffs 
are not believed by geologists to be produced by watery erosion ; and, 
indeed, he will find it taught that many deep valleys are in lines of fault, 
many in great cracks, without relative tangible displacement of the strata ; 
and that the initiatory condition of some profound canons was a fissure. 
With regard to the non-erosive power of running water and its contained 
sediment both sideways and downwards, it belongs to the ideas of the para- 
doxers who do not yet revere the name of De Morgan. There are some 
people who will not see what others can. Amongst other paradoxes, the 
author tells ns that the mud carried down by rivers is no proof of their 
erosive power. 
The theory of sub-aerial denudation is a terrible trial of our author’s 
faith ; and because Stonehenge is where it was, and the turf lies and daisies 
flourish at the same level, century after century, in spite of wear and tear, 
therefore mountain outlines, valleys, and all the details of the physiographer, 
are not the result of the elements. This is a very old objection, but it is 
worth nothing ; for whilst grass-covered spots last longer, others go with 
great rapidity, are worn down, furrowed, and make up the mud for the 
river and the sea. The evident accomplishments of the author of this 
work, his equally evident want of knowledge of the geology of the day, 
and his pinning his faith to “ Manuals,” are explanatory to a certain degree 
of his views, and of their appearing in print ; but the real cause comes out 
in the last sentence. There we find the rattle in the tail ; there the theo- 
logical serpent, wise and even dove-like, shows its crest. Thus the author 
concludes : u The hunger of the mind to see every natural occurrence 
resting upon a cause, and the vanity of believing that modern science can 
account for and explain everything, appear to create in the scientific mind 
a stubborn resistance to the belief in a First Cause .” This is not very 
consequent, and indeed is a gross mistake, to say the least : it is an unworthy 
