take it for granted that the sea level is a permanent and fixed level and that any alteration of level must be due to the movement of the land. But now some continental geologists have been raising the question whether this is to be accepted as definite, or not, and have even thought that it may be from a shrinkage of the crust of the globe, a diminution of radial extent of the globe, the distance of the centre of the globe to its mean surface, which might so take down the level of the surface of the sea. It seems to me that the paper of Professor Hull has a very direct bearing on that question and entirely disproves it, and I may say corroborates the theory of Lyell; for if this alteration of level, of say 25 feet and so on, takes place in a very short time, that cannot possibly be due to any diminution of the general level of the sea, for no shrinkage of the globe could give such a diminution of the general level of the sea in so short a time. The shrinkage of the globe, if it goes on (and Lord Kelvin advocates that, and I have the temerity to oppose it and I say there is no evidence of that or of the cooling of the globe) is entirely based on a priori reasoning. At Oxford, some years ago, I brought forward very strong evidence to show that there has been no cooling of the globe and no alteration in the general temperature of the globe since the Cambrian period. So I consider this paper of Professor Hull's is an exceedingly interesting and important one, and I hope it will draw attention to this controversy and tend to establish the position I have, as a geologist, always held, that the mean level of the sea is constant, and that it is the land that rises and falls, and not the sea.

Professor ORCHARD.-Our thanks are due to the learned author of this able paper for the interesting subject he has brought forward.

Some of us may have been a little surprised, and even startled, by the idea that since the time of the Roman occupation there has been an uprise in these British Islands. It is really but another illustration of the fact that there is nothing stable underneath the

.sun.

Reference has been made to the antiquity of man and to the universal deluge. With regard to the antiquity of man, the scientific world generally, I believe, now credits the view that there is no evidence of the existence of man on the earth earlier than after the close of the glacial period. That has been put, I think, pretty

well beyond the question, as from seven thousand to ten thousand years ago. The paper which we have had the pleasure of listening to, would not, I apprehend, be regarded by its author as entirely conclusive. The evidence cannot be called demonstrative. At the same time there is a great deal of probability about it. He has brought forward witnesses of very good character and unimpeachable honesty. The Roman wall strengthens his argument, and what the author says on page 180 of the paper shows there is a great deal to be said for this interesting theory. What he says in the last paragraph of page 180 with regard to the iron anchors and iron boat hook seems to be of very great interest indeed.

I should like to ask Professor Hull whether he can draw any date of demarcation between what is called the Stone Age and what we know as the Iron Age ?

I would also like to ask him his opinion as to the cause of these supposed uprises in the British Islands.

The CHAIRMAN.-I would like to say one word concerning what Professor Lobley said about the cooling of the earth. If I have correctly understood Lord Kelvin in his remarks on the thermal conductivity of the earth, it seems to me that the earth is giving off its heat, but it does not necessarily follow that the earth is becoming actually lower in temperature.

I think there can hardly be any doubt that the earth must be giving off its heat through volcanos, and all sorts of ways. The sun itself is giving off heat constantly, and yet we are told that the sun is not becoming cooler, because it is contracting constantly, the contraction causing the temperature to be maintained while the heat is being given off, as we know, in enormous quantities. That may possibly be a reconciliation between what Professor Lobley said and Lord Kelvin's writings as I have understood them.

I am sure we are all very grateful to Professor Hull for bringing such an interesting subject as this to our notice.

The SECRETARY.-I have listened with great pleasure to our chairman's remarks. which indicate that he has grasped subjects. connected with geology and with physical history as well as those of a higher and different kind.

But to pass on to Professor Lobley's questions, I would ask him whether he is perfectly sure that those cases of submergence on the shores of Cheshire and, as I have seen them, on the shores of

Waterford in Ireland, were not contemporaneous with the rise of the land in Scotland and the north of Ireland?

Mr. Rouse asked if the high beaches, indicating a submergence of some 1,200 feet, were scanty. I presume he means that since then they have only been of rare occurrence here and there.

Mr. MARTIN ROUSE.-No, sir, I meant thinner. My line of thought was that if there were a submergence and a rapid fresh rise, then there would be little time for deposit. The deposit would be much thinner in the centre.

The SECRETARY.-No, the beach in Moel Trefaen, North Wales, is of considerable thickness. I have not examined it myself, but I believe some of those beaches have been illustrated in the Journal of the Geological Society, and I think the thickness of some is 15 feet or 20 feet of gravel with marine shells of still existing species.

I accept Mr. Rouse's statement that the Romans never did occupy Norway, and I am much obliged to him for the correction. A young lady with whom I am acquainted made the same statement to me, and I asked her how she knew it; she said it was very well known that they did not. However, I do not think that invalidates what I have said as regards intercommunication with Scotland.

Professor Lobley referred to the sunken forest in Cheshire, with which he is acquainted. I know of one in the West of Ireland, in county Mayo, and another in county Waterford (Tramore Bay), a most remarkable instance, in which the process of subsidence may have been going on pari passu with that of elevation. I do not think the one is antecedent or subsequent to the other. I recollect making that very statement to Professor Phillips at a meeting of the British Association, and I remember his illustrating the process by a movement of his arm-one part of his arm going up and the other going down.

I doubt very much if there has been any movement of the least importance to the British Islands since the movements to which my paper refers.

Professor ORCHARD.—I asked Professor Hull if he could give a definite line of demarcation between the Stone Age and the Iron Age, and whether he could attribute it to any particular cause. The SECRETARY.-Yes, I had forgotten that. Do you mean a date in years

?

Professor ORCHARD.-Within a hundred years.

The SECRETARY.-B.C. or A.D.? That is quite impossible, and it does not follow. It is not like the case of the introduction of different kinds of architecture in our ecclesiastical buildings in England or Europe which is most remarkable and seems to have taken place over very wide areas. We know when we pass from the Early English to the Decorative, and from the Decorative to the Perpendicular styles. We know within a few years when those buildings were erected; but we cannot use an argument of that kind with regard to the Stone Age and the Iron Age.

Professor ORCHARD.-I thought not. Thank you.

The SECRETARY.-They were not contemporaneous all over the earth and in the British Islands. As to the cause, the whole crust of the globe, if we could see it, is no doubt in motion, but it may be very slow in some parts and comparatively rapid in others.

I thank you for the kind manner in which you have received my paper.

The Meeting then terminated.

ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.*

THE REV. CANON GIRDLESTONE, M.A., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following candidate was put forward by the Council and was elected :

LIFE-ASSOCIATE -Rev. Arthur I. Birkett, M.A., C.M.S. Missionary, India.

The following paper was then read by the Author, entitled :

No. I.

GARRATT, M.A.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

THE

By Rev. Canon

HE Samaritan Pentateuch is preserved at Nablous by the small remaining body of Samaritans in various MSS., some of unknown antiquity, greatly older to say the least than any MSS., either of the Old Testament or of the New Testament, and written not in that square Hebrew character with which we are familiar, but in the older Hebrew character, which is nearly that used by the Samaritans now, and closely resembles though not altogether identical with, that on the Moabite stone and in an ancient inscription found at Jerusalem in connection with the conduit which Hezekiah made. I do not say that it is exactly like either of these. All our present copies were copies made by Samaritans in the fifteenth century. The sight of the original MSS. is a privilege hardly ever granted in the present day, and the opportunity of examining them never. They have been to a certain degree tampered with by their guardians or perhaps I should rather say copyists; for some readings which were in them in Jerome's days are not in the copies which we possess.

These MSS. were well known in the fifth century to Jerome, who valued them highly. They were known to be very ancient MSS. when he saw them. Kennicott at the close of the eighteenth century proved in the Dissertatio Generalis at the end of his great Bible, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was the

* Monday, March 21st, 1904.