234 FUTY YEARS' PROGRESS IN BRITISH G EOLOGY j BEING AN ADDRESS ON THE OI'ENING OF THE SESSI ON 1887-8. By F. W. ReDLER, F.G.S., PRESIDENT. I ntl·oduction. Bending to that custom of our Associati on which expects th e President to open each Session with an Introductory Address, I purpose soliciting your at tenti on th is evening to a survey of th e progress of British geology during th e last hal f-century. Th is subject- as you may well understand-has not been so mnch selected by me as forced upon me. In a year when most people in this country have been indulging in retrospect, and recalling the past, in order to mark th e progress of the nation durin g the Victorian era, it seemed well to strike in with th e humour of th e hour, if only to show that th e movement of that science which th e Members of thi s Association specially cultivate has not been less rapid or less h ealthy than the corresponding movement of th e cognate sciences. It is no unu sual th ing for an anniv ersary address to a scient ific body to take th e sh ape of a chro nicle of the achievements in some particular department of kn owledge during the preceding year. In the case of a swift-stepping science lik e geology it is far from easy to keep pace with its advance, and an annual retrospect becomes nowndays a rather serious affair. To attempt , th erefore, t o multi­ ply such a ta sk fifty-fold would only be to court disaster. All th at we can hope to do within th e compass of an hour's discourse is to pass rapidly from bran ch to bra nch of our science, touching lightly upon each without dwelling upon any, and taking care that while no department is altogether neglected, none receives an undue share of attention. As, however, we are all likely to know more of the recent development of geology than of it s position half.a-century ago, it may be well to give more prominence to the early than to the later chapters of its history. Geological Pli ilosophu in 1837. Considering at how late a date geol ogy came to take its place in th e circle of the indu ctive sciences, it is surprising to note what a respectable and even dignified position geology occupied in th i II TH E PR ~: B IDEN T 1A L ADDRESS. 235 country fifty years ago. On the whole the geology of 1837 was strikingly like the geology of 1887. Speaking broadly, it may be said that the fundam ent al principles of the science had been estab­ lish ed much as we know them at the present day ; the meth ods of study had been laid down, the system of stratigraphical classifica­ tion had been practically determined, and the nomenclature of the science had been organized. And yet, with this general similarity, there was after all a vast difference, and th e more closely we scruti­ nize the subject the more strongly does this difference force itself into notice. The commencement of the Victorian period could hardly be called a time of general peace in th e geological world. It is true the old fires of th e W ernerian and Huttonian controversy, which had burnt so fiercely in the early days of British geology-especi­ ally north of the Tweed-had died down by 1837, and only occasionally cast forth a fitful fiicker-the sure token of approach­ ing ext inction.* The Wernerian geognosy seems at this time to have been defended only by some of the older men, who, having studied at Freiberg, were unable to shake th emselves free from the fascinating influence of th eir old master. George Bellas Greenough -who at that time was verg ing on sixty years of age , and who thirty years previously had been mainly instrumental in founding the Geological Society- represented th e surviving spirit of W er­ neriani sm in England, while Prof. Jameson, of Edinburgh-the founder of the old Wernerian Society- remained its half-hearted champion in th e North. But though the old battle of the Neptunists and Vulcanists was practically over, anoth er war-cry had unfortunately arisen to dis­ turb the atmosphere of British geology. Hap pily the new conflict, dealing with questions of a less fundament al character than those which had agitated the earlier controversialists, was carried on with much less severity ; but it was still powerful enough to rend in twain the geological world of half-a-c entury ago. In 1837 the chair of the Geological Society was occupied by the learned his­ torian of the Inductive Sciences, and in publishing this vel'y year * For the history of British Geology in the early part of this century see F itton's articles in the' Edi nb urg h Review,' Vol. xxix, No. 57, 1817, No. 58. 1818; Vol. lxix, No. 140, 1839. Conybear,,'s " Report" in 'Rep. Bri t. Assoo.,' 1832, p. 365. Also Dr. A. Geikie's 'Life of Sir R. 1. Mur­ chison' (Cap. vii, "Rise of Geology in Britain "), Vol. i, 1875, p. 96. 236 THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS" the third volume of his 'History,' he devoted the final chapter to a discussion of what he called" The Two Antagonist Doctrines of Geology." When resigning the Presidential Chair in 1839 he recurred to this antagonism, or "fundamental antithesis of opinion," describing the opposing schools of his day uncler the names of " Catastrophists " and " U niformiturians.":" In order to realize the situation at this period it is necessary to remember that, although Hutton had prononncecl with no uncer­ tain voice in favour of the adequacy of actual causes to produce most of the phenomena studied by geologists, yet this part of his creed failed for nearly half-a-century to attract adherents. Most of the prominent geologists at the period we are studying, while accepting the Huttonian views with regard to such fundamental questions as the origin of granitic and trappean rocks, and the general mode in which the stratified deposits have been formed, nevertheless questioned the geological potency of the existing activities of Nature. In fact, they were often at the pains of nicely discriminating between the causes which are now in action and those which have ceased to act. They failed to realize the significance of breaks in the succession of strata, holding that the change observed in passing from one formation to another, especi­ ally if accompanied by a marked change in the organic remains, involved the operation of terrestrial forces differing, if not in kind, at least in a marked and serious degree from those at present in operation. "Such views," said Whewell, writing in 1837, "pre­ vail extensively among geologists up to the present time." t It was against these catastrophic views that war was so long waged by Sir Charles Lyell. Although continental geologists have generally been favourably inclined towards cataclysmal doc­ trines, it must not be forgotten that it was a German who has the great merit of having first systematically collected the historical evidence of changes in Nature with the view of casting light upon geological phenomena. This was Von Hoff, of Gotha,:j: who died in the very year we are studying-the year 1837-leaving Lyell in almost undisputed possession of this special field of inquiry. That *, Proe, Geol, Soc.,' Vol. iii, p. 92. t 'History of the Inductive Sciences,' by the Rev. William Whew ell , 1837, p. 609. ::: ,. Geschichte del' durch Ueberlieferung nachgewiesenen naturliohen Verandernngen del' Erdr.berflache, Ein Versuch von Karl Ernst Adolf von Hoff." Gotha: 1822-1834. OPENING OF THE SESSION 1887-8. 237 Lyell had already made this snbject his own in England is attested by the fact that in 1837 he published the fifth edition of his famous , Principles '-a work which significantly bore upon its title-page the pregnant sentence of Playfair, "Amid all the revolutions of the globe the economy of Nature has been uniform." The value set at this time upon the ' Principles' is marked not simply by the fact that it had then reached its fifth edition, bnt by the more significant fact that the Royal Society had stamped the work with its signal approval by the award of a Royal medal. It is true that this award had some relation to Lyell's original researches among the Tertiary formations, but it is evident that a sense of the high value of the 'Principles' was the chief factor in deter­ mining the award. The Oouncil of the Royal Society, however. while recognizing the comprehensive scope of Lyell's views and acknowledging his philosophic spirit, distinctly declined to express any opinion on the controverted matter. Not that any objection could be fairly urged against the funda­ mental principles of Lyell's philosophy. The common-sense method of making the best of what we positively know in order to aid us in discovering what we do not know had been already recognized by Buffon and other naturalists as a canon of science not to be lightly laid aside. The main question at issue in the controversy of fifty years ago was whether we should admit the action of moderate forces, such as we are familiar with, operating through long periods of geologi­ cal time, or the action of violent forces, such as are unfamiliar to us, operating through comparatively short periods.