23 
purely hypothetical thing, he does not quote his previous facts in proof of 
this movement, because he says, u This question,’ that is, such an hypothesis 
as this, 11 1 conceive to be beyond the reach of demonstrable science, but he 
pledges himself to the spiral movement of the earth. But a great deal of the 
crushing Mr. Warington has described, we do find demonstrated wherever we 
go in northern latitudes. If, for instance, we observe the contorted rock strata 
of slate, no one can look at such twisted and contorted strata — which at one 
time have necessarily, from the formation of the strata, been horizontal and 
see them crumpled up as you would crumple layers of paper, without being 
aware there is some terrific force in existence, and doing this somewhere in 
the earth. None of the popular geological theories give us the slightest theory 
to account for such crumpling as this, nor the manner in which successive 
masses of earth are broken and laid one over the other. If I asume the 
present phase of Geology, and take the popular theory of Sir Charles Lyell 
that the earth has always been going on as it is now, and that we have merely 
certain subsidences and upheavals ; how are we to account for the great dis- 
tinction that there is in the successive fauna which present themselves when 
we take the strata of one layer, and find it covered by another layer and other 
strata ? The other popular theory, scarcely yet gone out of the text-books, 
was this,— that these fauna belonged to one creation and then they were 
covered by the fauna belonging to another creation, and that followed by a third 
creation. And what stopped that hypothesis ? Why, the discovery that there 
was a certain percentage of the fauna of these lower creations intruding upon 
the upper, and a certain percentage of the fauna of each creation intruding 
itself upon the other fauna. Now, according to all these old hypotheses, 
without some power bringing the fauna of one zone over the top of another 
and a third over that, we want some such theory as Mr. Hopkins supplies, if 
we are now to believe that all these three fauna were not fauna of distinct 
creations, but might have been co-existent on the earth at the same time. To 
take an example from known facts, we find that owing to the course of the 
Gulf Stream upon one portion of our coast, or of the coast of Europe, we 
may have an African fauna, and within a few miles of that a northern fauna, 
brought by the return of the Gulf Stream. I say that according to all our 
present modes of reading the Palaeontological records of the earth, that as 
regards these places within a few miles of one another, if the mass of earth from 
one part could be carried and deposited on the earth a few miles norih of it, 
we should have all these phenomena of certain percentages of fauna intruding 
as it were from certain strata into others, and we should have very much in 
point of fact what we do find displayed in the various superincumbent strata 
of the earth. It may be said that this could not have been done within the 
limits of the time assumed, and that Mr. Hopkins has made a great mistake 
in his calculations. A want in Mr. Hopkins’s paper has been supplied by 
Mr. Warington’s objection. The crumpling up, as it were, of one stratum on 
another is just what is found to be a fact. It must also be remembered that 
you could have a motion of the globe moving freely over itself ; and that the 
theory (I think it is Sir Henry James’s) of the present solid crust of the 
