28 
magnetism which Mr. Hopkins supposes is the cause. But magnetism may 
not be the cause, but the result, of the operation. It is tolerably clear that 
there has been a motion in the crust of the earth — that is undeniable ; and 
what Mr. Warington has said with respect to Syria is rather the exception to 
the rule, and may be accounted for just as Mr. Mitchell has been explaining. 
Mr. Reddie. — It is somewhat unfortunate, my lord, that Mr. Hopkins, 
the author of the paper read this evening, has not been able to be present 
himself to defend it. But I may venture to say this, that I am sure he will 
be extremely obliged to Mr. Warington for his valuable criticisms. It was 
never intended that this paper should be accepted here, as absolutely solving 
the great difficulties that there unquestionably are as regards what is called 
“ the precession of the equinoxes,” whether we endeavour to account for them 
by the motion of the earth’s axis, or the motion of the whole crust of the 
earth. I am afraid Captain Fishboume was assuming the point at issue in 
taking for granted that the apparent alteration in the position of the streets 
of Philadelphia, and in the orientation of churches, must be caused solely by 
the motion of the crust of the earth. It would be equally explained by what 
astronomers have given as the cause — (at least, if I cannot say equally ex- 
plained, I may say that it would be'approximately so explained) ; but then 
what Mr. Hopkins rests upon, in favour of his view as against the astronomical 
one, is the existence of those other facts which do appear to afford the proofs 
of a change of climate having taken place in different parts of the earth, and 
which Mr. Warington has entirely passed over. Of course it was no part of 
Mr. Warington’s duty to meet the other side of the case, so to speak ; but at 
the same time, we must not forget that he did only meet one side of it. He 
did not account for the remains of tropical plants and animals found in Port- 
land and Sheppey, and in the present latitude of London ; and he took no 
notice of the change of climate in Greenland, as Mr. Mitchell has pointed out. 
Mr. Hopkins, however, will no doubt himself reply to the most important 
parts of Mr. Warington’s criticisms, especially as regards the exact degree of 
obliquity of this supposed motion. I believe there has been a slight misunder- 
standing about it, but nothing that Mr. Hopkins will not either satisfactorily 
explain, or admit to be unaccounted for. We now come to consider those 
parts of Mr. Warington’s observations which, as it were, lie within them- 
selves, or the supposed mechanical difficulties of the theory. I scarcely think 
he has quite established that these difficulties which were to him so great, as 
to this necessary crumpling and crushing, are any objection to the hypothesis 
now advanced. Because the obvious result of such crushing would be the 
raising up of the earth’s crust at one place and its depression at another, and 
these Mr. Warington will not deny to be geological facts ; for even when 
we goto Palestine he tells us of an upheaval there. Now, Mr. Warington is 
quite right, that if the earth is being twisted round, and a larger quantity of 
its solid crust is compressed into a smaller space, there will be this crushing ; 
but what, on the other hand, will there be if the mountains are upheaved by 
expanding the surface of the globe ? Would there not then be a riving 
asunder, an opening of the earth’s crust, which is not the f^ct 1 It appears to 
