226 
DR. BUCKLAND AND THE G-LACIAL THEORY. 
“ After these general remarks, Dr, Buckland proceeds to describe 
the evidence of glaciers observed by him in Scotland last autumn, 
partly before and partly after an excursion, in company with Professor 
Agassiz; but he forbears to dwell on the pbsenomena of parallel terraces, 
though he is convinced that they are the effects of lakes produced by 
glaciers.” 
The following discussion then took place* :— 
Mr. Murchison called upon the mathematicians and physical 
geographers present to speak of the objections to Dr. Buckland’s 
glacial hypothesis—himself should attend only to the facts of the 
case. Of the scratches and polish on the surface of certain rocks 
there is no doubt, and “Are glaciers the cause?” is the question. 
Could they be done by ice alone? If we apply it to any as the 
necessary cause, the day will come when we shall apply it to all. 
Highgate Hill will be regarded as the seat of a glacier, and Hyde Park 
and Belgrave Square will be the scene of its influence. Dr. Buckland 
has in his paper assumed that all these heaps of diluvium are moraines; 
but I would rather examine the subject under the old name Diluvium, 
and with our old ideas of diluvial action, than by using the term 
moraines assume the question proved. On Schiehalliou there are 
. . . . rocks. If Schiehallion had been covered with glaciers 
there ought to be some. ... If the height be great the result 
should be proportionate. There ought to be a co-ordinate relation in 
the phenomena. But in the Highland mountains, not one-third the 
elevation of the Alps, we have moraines two or three times the 
magnitude of any known in Switzerland. Formerly, when we found 
traces of fragmented rocks disposed around a mountain, we attributed 
them to the successive periods of elevation in that mountain. The 
parallel roads of Glen Roy were compared to sea-beaches ; now all are 
attributed to the action of ice. And not only these, but Edinburgh 
' and Stirling, and other places equally out of the reach of such actions, 
did glaciers ever exist in the higher chains, are to be covered with a 
mass of ice! These grooved and striated surfaces and heaps of 
boulders are also to be found in Scandinavia, on the east of the Gulf 
of Bothnia, all proceeding from the north and north-west. Have 
these crossed the gulf on ice? In Russia, too, we shall find them 
where there are no mountains. And if we look to the remains of 
marine shells found in beds elevated, differing in no respect from 
those in our present seas, except that they are called “Pleistocene” 
(by James Smith and Lyell), we have proof of a lower elevation at the 
very time (the period following upon the more tropical epochs), when 
these glaciers should be introduced. On these accounts I am still 
contented to retain our old ideas, that when a mountain was elevated. 
*■ I insert one or two remarks in square brackets to complete the sense of 
the observations; otherwise the discussion is an exact copy of my father’s 
notes,—H. B. W, 
