38 
this theory. If a great interval of time has elapsed between the formation 
of the two, it will be only natural, from a common-sense point of view, to 
suppose that the fossil remains in the two would be distinctly different ; but 
what do we find ? I have it here, on the authority of Mr. Evans and of Sir 
Charles Lyell himself, that the fossil remains in the two sets of gravels are 
very similar. To take another aspect of the question: I certainly think 
that, looked at from an h priori point of view, the Lyellian theory, 
to a scientific mind, would have a preference, and for this reason ; that, 
according to the Lyellian theory, we are dealing with causes at present in 
operation, and the scientific man, in solving a difficult problem, would always 
prefer to use known factors rather than unknown ones. In this connection 
there is one fact quoted here, which I think is worth almost all the other 
facts advanced. Mr. Pattison says : — “ Slow and gradual movement, even 
if interrupted, could not have produced these sharply-defined terraces.” Now 
here is a fact : If, by comparing these sharply-defined terraces with the work 
which we know to be actually accomplished by the slow process of wearing 
away, we find that the facts in the two cases are distinctly different, we shall 
surely be justified by every scientific law in referring these different results 
to different causes. There is one other matter to which I should like to call 
attention, and the argument is somewhat analogous to the one I have just 
referred to. It is with regard to the caves in Belgium. Mr. Pattison says : — 
“The opening of the caves in Belgium, once flooded by the stream of the 
valley, is now 200 feet above the latter, in solid limestone.” According to 
the Lyellian theory, those 200 feet have been scooped out by the gradual 
process of wearing away.* But Mr. Pattison goes on to tell us that there is 
no such cause in operation. Why, then, the whole thing (he says) is illusory, 
because the very object and existence of the Lyellian theory is to refer all 
those changes to causes which are at present going on around us. I think 
the paper before us is a singularly fair and impartial one, and it is certainly 
distinguished by close logic and critical acumen. 
Mr. E. Charlesworth (a visitor). — Although I have paid some attention to 
the superficial formations of the earth’s surface, yet I feel utterly incompetent 
to express any opinion as to the philosophy of the view taken by Sir Charles 
Lyell in relation to the enormous period of time during which man has existed 
upon the earth. But I can say this much : that I think Sir Charles LyelTs 
calculation with regard to the 30,000 years during which the cataract of 
Niagara has been cutting its way through the rock, seems to me certainly 
consistent with fair and legitimate deduction from the facts evolved by Sir 
Charles. But then comes tho question, Can you correlate with the cutting of 
the channel the existence of man ? Can you show that any human remains, 
of any sort whatever, date their existence before the commencement of that 
* This subject is taken up by Mr. J. Parker (vol. viii. p. 51), who disagrees 
with Sir C. Lyell.— Ed. ^ 
