320 
now crows in Europe is about fifty-three degrees. The paper concluded by 
stating that it would be impossible, by any arrangement of the .relative posi- 
tions of land and water, to produce for the northern hemisphere a climate 
which would explain the phenomena in a satisfactory manner. It must 
only be admitted that we are face to face with a problem w hose solution, 
in all probability, must be attempted, and, doubtless, completed, by the 
astronomer.” f 
I hare now in my hands a paper which I am about to read, after a few 
words of explanation. It is written by a gentleman, a practical chemist, 
who had heard that Mr. Hopkins’s paper would be read here this evening, 
and among other things that it would call attention to the now impugned 
doctrine that granite is an igneous formation. A friend of mine, an a 
member of the Institute, now present, knowing that this gentleman had been 
encaged in making experiments on granite, and that his conclusions were 
opposed to those of Mr. Hopkins, let him know that we were about to 
discuss this subject ; and I requested that he might be invited to send us a 
paper giving his results, that we might hear both sides. He had said that 
he supposed we did not care for “ facts ’’ in this Institute ; to which I replied 
that facts were what we especially cared for. I am, therefore, about to read 
what he has sent me, -not as a regular paper, that has been presented in the 
ordinary way and passed the council,— but I wish to bring it before you with 
this explanation ; and I wish myself individually to do so, all the more 
because I have, in the Scicntia Scimtiarnm , and on other occasions, callec 
public attention to the fact that the theory of granite being an igneous 
formation had been given up by geologists. I believe Mr. Hopkins was one 
of the first, if not the very first, who impugned that doctrine ; for he <M so 
nearly thirty years ago. It is certainly now acknowledged by Sir Charles 
Lyell, and Mr. Hamilton, the President of the Geological Society, and 
indeed by all “authorities” among geblogists, that it was an error to suppose 
that granite is an igneous crystallisation, or that the centre of the earth is 
now in an incandescent state, heated up to 195,000 degrees of temperature, 
as had been deduced from the nebular hypothesis. I cannot, however, say 
that this paper (which is by Mr. Lewis Thompson, M.R.C.S.,) carries conviction 
to my mind. I rather think Mr. Hopkins will claim some of its facts as being 
rather upon his side, but that is the author’s look-out. I only wish to put 
the arguments forward, even although I am not convinced by them, because 
we do wish in this society to hear all sides of every question we take up. 
But Mr. Thompson, I must add, although he does not believe in the aqueous 
formation of granite, is by no means a supporter of the nebular theory , an 
he endeavours to destroy that hypothesis, while believing in the igneo- ' 
formation of granite. So that if Mr. Thompson’s experiments are sufficient 
and his reasons sound, we shall have the nebular theory twice slain-hrst by 
water, and now again by fire ! But let us hear Mr. Thompson himseh. His 
paper is as follows : — 
The object of the present paper is to institute an 
between certain well-established facts and a par ticidar theory of the forma 
tion of the earth, known as the “ Nebular Theory.” According to this theory , 
