15 
above causes are not sufficient to give tbe explanation of the whole motion ; 
and now there is a tendency— (and it is so far admitted as to be discussed by 
the Royal Society, and it has been entered into by other authors than Mr. 
Evan Hopkins) — to assert that there is in all probability an actual motion of 
the earth’s surface ; but as to matters of detail or calculation as to this move- 
ment, I am not at present prepared to enter into. 
Mr. Waringtou. — My course must be, then, to take Mr. Hopkins’s 
figures, rather than his angle, since it is the figures, not the angle, which he 
uses for his calculations. Now, let us realize the motion which this theory 
assumes. In the first place, it is a motion of the whole crust of the earth, 
of course only visibly apparent in the continents, but really extending over 
the whole surface of the globe. If, for example, England is moving in a 
certain direction, it is very plain that the bed of the sea on all sides must be 
moving also, or there would be a continual wrenching of the earth’s crust 
going on where sea and land meet, such as we know does not, in fact, occur. 
Mr. Reddie. — Mr. Hopkins considers the sea as included in the crust of 
the earth. 
Mr. Warington.— T hen, in the next place, it is a motion of the earth’s 
crust to a considerable depth ; we do not know what depth, but it is certain, 
whatever the motion is, it is a motion which affects the earth to a consider- 
able depth, not merely a surface of a few hundred yards, but a crust some 
miles (at least) thick of solid rock. What, then, is Mr. Hopkins’s notion ? 
It is that of a spiral motion by which every portion of the earth’s surface 
is perpetually, as long as the motion goes on, getting nearer and nearer to 
the North Pole. Bear that in mind. He supposes the land to start from 
the South Pole, to pass the whole way up northward to the Equator, and 
then on again to the North Pole. This is the theory as I understand it, and it 
is a motion strictly spiral, by which the whole crust of the earth is constantly 
tending northward. I ask, then, what mechanical alteration in the surface 
of the earth does such motion occasion ? You will observe that the earth 
being a sphere, the parts nearest to the poles are far smaller in circumference 
than those near the Equator. What, then, does this theory require us to 
believe ? Why, that this same identical thick crust of earth, which occupies 
now a certain space, is being perpetually crushed up together and put in a 
smaller space. For example, it requires us to believe that the land which 
stood in our latitude 6,000 years ago has passed on into a latitude 30 or 40 
degrees further north, where it now occupies only one-half the surface it 
formerly occupied, since this motion is not only said to be taking place in 
England, but the whole surface of the globe is supposed to be thus tending 
northward. The theory involves, therefore, of necessity an enormous crush- 
ing together of the crust of the earth. (Hear, hear.) Is that a fact ? Let 
us take the change involved in our own latitude within a single year by way 
of example. I have made a rough calculation of what this would amount 
to, and find that the mere motion of a single year (if this theory be correct) 
involves a crushing of one mile and three quarters of the earth’s surface into 
nothing — that is to say, in one year hence this solid crust of earth is to be 
