95 
suit Sir Charles Lyell to insist upon, but which I did insist upon, and that was 
that the progress of geology shows that many animals supposed to be extinct 
are not extinct. Mr. Pattison has spoken of the successive creation theory 
as not a theory, but a fact. What I maintained was, that before it could be 
brought forward as an undoubted fact a vast deal more must be known than 
was known at present. I guarded myself very carefully by using the state- 
ment of Sir Charles Lyell that we knew scarcely a tithe of the earth’s crust, 
that not a thousandth part of the strata could come within man’s cognisance. 
We know very little of European geology, and there probably has been no 
place where geology has been cultivated with such assiduity as in this country, 
and that cultivation has led to the discovery that the supposed facts upon 
which the successive creation theory existed can no longer be maintained in 
their integrity. I carefully guarded myself against Darwinism. I believe 
that in his new book Mr. Darwin introduces us to a new law which entirely 
contradicts his development theory. (Hear, hear.) I think, in connection 
with that matter, that it is a very important point that the creatures which 
are supposed to form the mass of the chalk are identical with some that are 
existing now in our own seas ; — and how little do we know of our deep seas ! 
There was an idea some years ago that we were better acquainted with the 
seas than we are now. The theory propounded by Forbes, that no living 
animals could exist below a certain depth, has been disposed of by some very 
awkward facts that have lately been brought to light. We are progressing 
day by day in these matters ; we should accept facts only, and be cautioned 
in the name of science not to adopt theories which will prevent the reception 
of facts if they contradict our theories. We should hold loosely to our 
hypotheses and collect more facts, even though it is a long time before those 
facts are sufficiently numerous to allow us to form any conclusion. (Hear, 
hear.) 
The Chairman. — I may say, as a sailor, that, having seen the deposits in 
the Ganges, Irrawady, and Yang-tse-Kiang, very little can be said in favour 
of a supposed law of deposits. In 1842 there was a Chinese war, and our 
ships went up to Nankin ; ten years afterwards I went up a passage which 
at that time, according to the charts, was dry land, yet I had eighteen feet of 
water. That eighteen feet was deposited elsewhere, and this state of things 
is constantly going on in long rivers, for a particle of earth can be deposited 
in them and turned over and over again, perhaps twenty times. The -same 
remark applies to those pieces of pottery that have been noticed ; sometimes 
they may be high up in the deposit, and after being disturbed they may be 
found lower down. Mr. Pattison has suggested another point, when he 
alluded to one of the sources of the Nile being in a tropical region. We know 
that the mountains there are all pointed ; the soft particles have been washed 
away in long-past ages, so that there is a smaller quantity deposited than 
there once was. The deposit, therefore, was in times gone by tenfold 
greater, I take it, than now. In respect of Mr. Warington’s suggestion, 
that the only source of supply of carbonate of lime is to be found in the 
rivers, we know that the waters cover three times as much area as the land, 
