356 
to another point. Mr. Reddie, in his paper, seems not clearly to have under- 
stood Professor Huxley with reference to the time in the earth’s history 
required for the formation of the separate strata. Professor Huxley alluded 
to 29 or 30 distinct formations which constitute the superficial material of 
the earth’s crust. AH these, I should like it to he understood, indicate as 
many separate layers, marked by distinct assemblages of organic remains, 
very few of which ever passed from one of these layers into the other. This 
may be taken as one proof that the stratified rocks were not accumulated at 
one period. It was formerly thought that there were great gaps or breaks 
existing between these formations. We are well aware that these 29 or 30 
layers are divided into three great groups, known as the first, second, and 
third life periods. But so marked are they that any ordinary person with the 
least instruction could at once say, on seeing any portion of them, brought 
from any part of the world, to what period they belonged. That there were 
passages I am willing to admit, between what we used formerly to think the 
great breaks in time between the primary and secondary periods. Through- 
out all periods of the earth’s history there have been breaks. One group of 
rocks lies upon another, not in the same parallel direction, and the two are 
said to be unconformable. While we find that in this country there is a 
decided break between the organic forms of the oldest rocks and the over- 
lying strata, and no continuity of life, in the Tyrol we find in the Trias there 
is an assemblage of fossils, some genera apparently belonging to the old 
period, and some apparently belonging to the secondary period. Taking 
these things into consideration, I think that those persons who look into the 
question must at least allow that there is some argument for time. For 
instance, if we look at past ages, how is it that we find no remains of man or 
his works in these deposits ? Professor Huxley traced these remams back 
to the latest Tertiary period. That, of course, even would require great 
lapse of time. You have all the accumulation of the London, Paris, and 
Berlin basins belonging to the earliest part of that period. You have all the 
forms distinct from the present period. There is another group in the 
Miocene beds, and the remains are still different from the existing forms, 
and then you come to the more recent accumulations connected with or 
overlying the glacial drift alluded to by Dr. Buckland. It is only from these 
accumulations in the valley of the Somme and elsewhere that we get the first 
traces of human works, in the shape of flint knives. Beyond this, in the older 
periods, we get no evidences of man’s remains. There are none amongst the 
Silurian rocks— no fragment of a canoe wrecked among the coral reefs of 
the Carboniferous period ; there are none among the plants of the Coal 
period ; none among the Saurian bones of the Lias. These facts, I have 
no doubt, many of you hafve read in the admirable pamphlet of Mr. Pattison 
published under the title of “New Facts and Old Records,” a work which 
I would recommend to the study of those who have not seen it. If I may 
say a few words more, I can only regret the remarks which have fallen from 
one speaker as to men of science not being read in theological works ; and 
have much pleasure in mentioning a few names to whom geologists are 
