duced in an hour than were effected, subsequently to the sixth day, by the normal action of the polar forces in many centuries. Why then demand a greater time than is recorded in Genesis, and declared in the fourth commandment? The lands must have risen above the level of the sea on the second day within the tropical zone, to provide the necessary vegetable nourishment for the animals which were to appear on the fifth and sixth days. The oceanic movement and the electro-magnetic currents of the globe from the first day to the fifth, before man and the large terrestrial animals appeared on the scene, were doubtless circulating from pole to pole at a rapid rate, preparing and forming the entires urface of the earth in every zone from south to north.

Taking all these terrestrial operations into account in connection with the established fact of there being a constant movement on the surface of the earth equal to 20" per annum in latitude northward, I have long come to the conclusion that there is no necessity whatever to alter the literal meaning of the first chapter of Genesis, or the description of the Deluge, noryet to alter the Jewish chronology, in order to account most satisfactorily for all geological phenomena hitherto discovered.

The great electro-magnetic power which envelops our globe circulates from pole to pole, and completes its circuit of action through the medium of the axis. It propels the currents of the ocean from the Antarctic to the Arctic focus of convergence, and by its directive property and action on magnetic needles guides the mariner on the seas in the darkest nights. The existence of this great universal power was scarcely known a few centuries ago; yet its everlasting action in the subterranean base imperceptibly changes the aspects of man's habitation, remodels again and again the superficies of the globe, and makes all pass away in succession like a scroll. Thus all things terrestrial are ever changing, decaying, and renewing; the lands, like generations, are passing through different stages, and finally merge into eternity, according to the will and ordinance of our Maker.

The CHAIRMAN.-It is my duty, as President of the evening, to propose a vote of thanks to the able and accomplished author of this paper. You will hardly expect from me anything in the shape of scientific criticism; but I may say this (and I have no doubt that many of you would say the same) that I have been intensely interested by what we have heard. I think it is an admirable paper, and one that must be productive of benefit to us all. Without entering into discussion, I will mention one fact that may be regarded as interesting. I could not help being struck by the frequent allusions in this paper to periods of 4,000, 5,000, and 6,000

years; and when Cuvier was in England, I saw him frequently, and one Sunday evening I was with him, and whilst we were talking of the Bible and modern science, he said this:-" All my researches have brought me to this conclusion, that the geological changes on the earth do not require a longer period for their accomplishment than 6,000 years "-the period which we think is the duration of the world from the beginning, as we gather from the first chapter of Genesis. I will now invite discussion on the paper, and any gentleman who has anything to say will please address the meeting.

Mr. WARINGTON.-Before I commence my remarks on this paper I wish to ask one question. I was in hopes that the author would have been here to answer it, but I dare say, though he is not here, some other gentleman better acquainted with astronomy than myself may be able to solve my difficulty. It is this. Mr. Hopkins states that the direction in which the crust of the earth is moving, is at the angle of 23 degrees to the Equator, that is to say, in the same angle as the line of the ecliptic; and he says that this is equivalent to an annual motion in latitude of 20 seconds, and in longitude of 50 seconds; in other words, the proportion is as two to five. Now, upon looking at the globe, and seeing what relation there is between the changes of latitude and longitude involved in the motion of the ecliptic, I find instead of these changes being in the proportion of two to five, they are in the proportion (nearly) of two to eight. How is this to be explained? Which is right? Is the motion really a motion in the plane of the ecliptic at an angle of 23 degrees, or is it a motion in the proportion of two of latitude to five of longitude—that is, at an angle of 36 degrees? I want to use these figures in testing Mr. Hopkins's conclusions, and until I know which method of reckoning is right I am altogether at sea. Is there any one present who can help me? If so, I should be glad if they would do so before I say another word.

Rev. WALTER MITCHELL.-I think, perhaps, Mr. Warington may be labouring under a misconception. There is some degree of vagueness on that point in the paper; but I think that astronomers admit there are two motions, or one motion, in reality, which is resolved into two. One of these motions is accounted for by a gradual change of the point at which the ecliptic cuts the Equator. That is the motion by which the plane of the earth's motion round the sun is slowly changing; but that is not sufficient to account for all the changes. Besides that, which is called the precession of the equinoxes, there is another change, and that is accounted for by what is called "nutation," consisting of a wriggling motion of the earth's axis, as it were, in space. While the plane of the motion is changing, you have a change like the motion of a teetotum; and the whole change that takes place is compounded of these two motions. It was the popular theory a little while since--the generally received theory of all the text-books on astronomy-that there was no real motion of the earth's crust, but that the only motion was a change in the earth's axis occasioned by the disturbing forces of the moon and planets upon the earth. There is now a growing belief on the part of astronomers, including the Astronomer Royal, that the

above causes are not sufficient to give the 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 movement, I am not at present prepared to enter into.

Mr. WARINGTON.-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.-Then, 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 considerable 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 crushing 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

crushed together to such an extent that it shall occupy 13 miles less surface than now; and this is to be continued year by year at a continually accelerated rate, since the further north the land proceeds, the faster will be the crushing. I ask, then, what change do we see going on, or can we trace historically, which can, in the smallest degree, answer to this crushing of the earth's surface, which is such an essential element in Mr. Hopkins' theory? Is there such a phenomenon? Now, you will observe there are only two ways in which this action can take place. It must be either by a crumpling and crumbling of the earth's crust, throwing it up and down, or it must be by a bending of the surface, as to cause it to occupy a smaller horizontal area. The first method may be rejected at once as incredible. Concerning the second it is to be asked, What amount of bending would be required ? Suppose an extreme case, that by this bending the surface formerly horizontal was thrown into an angle of 45°; this would only cause a diminution of about one-third in the original area occupied, and so, instead of 13 miles, we should require 5 miles of the earth's surface in our latitude to be yearly thrown from a horizontal position into an angle of 45°, to account for the change. Now we are certain, from what we know of the amount of rising and sinking actually in progress, that there is no such oscillation of the earth's surface-no such bending and doubling of the surface going on at the present time, as will account for this perpetual diminution of the surface. This is not all, however. In the northern hemisphere, you have this crushing of the surface together, but in the southern hemisphere you must have just the reverse-a perpetual extension and spreading out. The land in the southern hemisphere is supposed to be constantly getting nearer to the Equator, and so covering a larger surface than before, which involves, of necessity, a cracking and pulling of itself out. Now, solid rock, of the depth of several miles, is not easily pulled or stretched out, any more than it is not easily bent about or crushed. But even if this could be done-if the land was so peculiarly ductile as, in fact, it is not, still you have only got through half the difficulty; for I ask next, When the land has got to the North Pole, what becomes of it? Here has been the whole crust of the earth, for the last 6,000 years, going to the North Pole. Where is it? It has not formed itself into a great mountain at the North Pole. Where is it? Observe this-it is not merely a crumpling up, or pulling out, year by year, of so many miles of the surface, but a pushing away of all the land that was there before. Mr. Hopkins refers, indeed, for analogy to the ocean; but what do we find there? True, there are enormous currents of water passing from south to north, but, then, there are also equally enormous return currents, and without these return currents the motion could not take place. There is no great store of water in the south from whence a supply may be sent to the north, neither is there any gigantic vessel or receptacle at the north for the water to run into; the water, to circulate thus, must get back again, and it does so. The question is, then, can the land, in like manner, get back again? Mr. Hopkins's theory plainly requires us to believe that it does. He says nothing of any accumulation of land at the North Pole, or

of any unfailing store of land at the South Pole to supply the place of the land moving northward. Yet, how is such a return current of land to be conceived? In the face of such difficulties; such a crumpling together of the land in the north; such a pulling out of the land in the south; such an utter lack of information as to where the land goes to, and from whence it comes how, I ask, can we receive this theory of a spiral motion of the earth's crust? It is simply incredible, because of the mechanical difficulties necessarily involved, which mechanical difficulties would seem to have been altogether overlooked. Whoever, then, maintains this theory to be the true one, is bound to tell us how it is that the land coming from the south first occupies an immensely larger surface as it approaches the Equator, and then an immensely smaller one as it proceeds further north; what becomes of it when it reaches the North Pole, and whence it came from at the South; and, further, to give proof that such changes as these are, in fact, now taking place. It seems, then, that this idea of a spiral motion must be given up. Must we say, in consequence, that there is no motion in the surface of the earth to account for the observed astronomical changes? In making a hypothesis, we are bound to account for the facts of the case. Some motion there must be somewhere which accounts for these astronomical changes. What motion, we may ask, would account for this? If the whole surface of the earth were simply revolving round, not spirally towards the North Pole, but in a plane inclined to the Equator-that is, half towards the north-west and half towards the south-east-these changes of latitude and longitude would at once be accounted for, and this without any crushing together or pulling out of the land, or getting land from no one knows where; but to do this the motion must not be, as I say, a spiral one from south to north, but one of simple revolution in an inclined plane to the Equator. Such a motion will account for the facts of the case. Now observe, if we take this view, what follows. We have no longer a motion of the whole earth's surface to the north-west, but we have half the surface moving to the north-west, and half to the south-east; since, if the motion going on the whole way round, is of the nature of a revolution, each joint of the surface must eventually come back again to where it at first stood. It seems, therefore, that the only motion of the earth's crust which will account for this astronomical phenomenon (if in this way it can be accounted for) is a revolution of the entire crust, as of a hollow sphere, without crushing together and breaking, and that such motion must of necessity return upon itself. It is impossible to twist a revolving sphere in such a way that at last every point shall not return to its original place, that is always supposing you do not disturb the substance of the sphere itself. But if this is the case, how will it tally with the facts alleged as to changes of climates? Mr. Hopkins gives England as an example; and we can well suppose that England, moving in this way, was once in a much hotter climate than now a tropical latitude, if you will. Then he takes another case, Greenland, and another, Australia. But it is simply impossible, on this view of the motion of the earth's crust, for all these three parts of the globe to have VOL. II.

C