Page:Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, vol. 25.djvu/55

 wit and common sense, aided by some training in other intellectual exercises.

Nerved by such precedents, I proceed to put my pleading before you.

And the first question with which I propose to deal is. What is it to which Sir W. Thomson refers when he speaks of " geological speculation " and " British popular geology " ?

I find three more or less contradictory systems of geological thought, each of which might fairly enough claim these appellations, standing side by side in Britain. I shall call one of them Catastrophism, another Uniformitarianism, the third Evolutionism ; and I shall try briefly to sketch the characters of each, that you may say whether the classification is or is not exhaustive.

By Catastrophism I mean any form of geological speculation which, in order to account for the phenomena of geology, supposes the operation of forces different in their nature, or immeasurably different in power, from those which we at present see in action in the universe.

The Mosaic cosmogony is, in this sense, catastrophic, because it assumes the operation of extra-natural power. The doctrine of violent upheavals, debacles, and cataclysms in general is catastrophic, so far as it assumes that these were brought about by causes which have now no parallel. There was a time when catastrophism might preeminently have claimed the title of " British popular geology;" and assuredly it has yet many adherents, and reckons among its supporters some of the most honoured members of this Society.

By Uniformitarianism I mean preeminently the teaching of Hutton and of Lyell.

That great, though incomplete work, ' The Theory of the Earth,' seems to me to be one of the most remarkable contributions to geology which is recorded in the annals of the science. So far as the not-living world is concerned, uniformitarianism lies there, not only in germ, but in blossom and fruit.

If one asks how it is that Hutton was led to entertain views so far in advance of those prevalent in his time in some respects, while in others they seem almost curiously limited, the answer appears to me to be plain.

Hutton was in advance of the geological speculation of his time, because, in the first place, he had amassed a vast store of knowledge of the facts of geology, gathered by personal observation in travels of considerable extent, and because, in the second place, he was thoroughly trained in the physical and chemical science of his day, and thus possessed, as much as any one in his time could possess it, the knowledge which was requisite for the just interpretation of geological phenomena, and the habit of thought which fits a man for scientific inquiry.

It is to this thorough scientific training that I ascribe Hutton's steady and persistent refusal to look to other causes than those now in operation for the explanation of geological phenomena. Thus he writes : — " I do not pretend, as he [M. de Luc] does in his

f