WELLINGTON’S PET EARTHQUAKE IN DANGER.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5496, 7 November 1878, Page 2

WELLINGTON’S PET EARTHQUAKE IN DANGER.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —It seems to me very desirable that the attention’of our local geologists should be called (if some one has not already done so) to a book recently published entitled “Scepticism in Geology.” Tho author has not thought fit to affix his name to the work, but signs himself “Verifier.” The book is written with great ability. It is published by Murray, has already reached a second edition, and has been favorably reviewed by the “ Edinburgh Review ” in a long article. It is not therefore a work which scientific men can afford to disregard. Yet its purpose is so revolutionary, and its assertions so startling, that the doctors of science will all stand convicted of grossly misleading the world unless they can refate thL writer. “ Verifier," in fact boldly, I had almost said impudently, traverses the whole geological hypotheses; his thesis is that the fundamental principle of the uniformitarian school of geologists is utterly erroneous, and that the phenomena of tho past in tho earth s history cannot bo accounted for by the action of causes at present in operation, and by them alone, acting as they are acting at the present moment. He accuses Sir 0. Lyell and Mr. Geikie, and .accuses thorn with'much sarcasm and bitterness, of carelessups in their observation of facts and of rashness in forming their conclusions. He affirms that aqueous action is not exercising a degrading influence on the high lauds, and that subterranean agencies arc not producing opposite effects. That it cannot be shown, as geologists have affirmed, that the Scandinavian Peninsula is slowly increasing ils elevation above the level of the sea, and above all, that it is a complete error to suppose that earthquakes by their action produce any effect in permanently elevating the crust of tl;o earth in those places where they occur. It is this last assertion of his that has led me to solicit some notice of tho book in your columns. For the writer fortifies his assertion by reference to three very well-known earth! quakes, by each of which it has always been supposed hitherto that the level of the land over enormous areas was greatly altered. The first is that which occurred at the mouth of the Indnl in 1819, the second on the coast of Chili in 1822, and the third that which occurred on this spot in the year 1855 ; and he. declares that in this last case, which he discusses at considerable length, as in the other two, no permanent alteration has been made in the level of the land. He asserts on page £4: —“We l are informed by one well acquainted with New Zealand and the locality- of this earthquake, that tbe'asseijtioi} of ’ permanent upheavals over, so Jarge an area is allowed to bo a mistake, and is not now to be made out on the spot.” Now as this controversy is one of the

greatest .speculative importance, ami as this writer, though his contention is one that has hithert® been confined to. persons ignorant of science, is yet a man who by the vigor, not to say the viciousness, o£ his attack can hardly be ignored with safety, and as it is plain that wo on this spot ought to bo able-, to satis factorily settle the question, I have ventured to ask for sufficient of your space to notice this book. The controversy is simply concerning a matter of fact, and on© that ought to be capable of the most certain determination. Is the ground in this neighborhood higher than it was when tho first settlers came here, or is it not 3 There ought to be methods for answering that question with . tho most absolute certainty. It is plain, however, that We ought not to be satisfied with mere general belief on the subject, the thing should be determined by the most rigid scientific methods, and by ; the ablest professional geologists. In reading the book one cannot help admiring the vast knowledge of geological details displayed by “Verifier,” notwithstanding that ho frequently awakens considerable irritation, if not indignation, in the mind of the reader by the very disrespectful way in which he attacks such men as Sir C. Lyell, and, more particularly, Mr. Geikie. Still, itis well to have our “ idola” taken down and examined occasionally, and most men who have learnt to question popular theories can remember the annoyance and indignation with which they originally regarded the teacher who first taught them to think for themselves. My own opinion is that tho key to this book will be found in tho last chapter, where the writer plainly adoptstha high a priori method of reasoning, a circumstance that rather makes one doubt whether he is after all a practically scientific man,' Ho argues .thus:—“The world was originally created perfect by a perfect creator, any change in it, therefore, must be a change for. the worse : hence no changes are actually taking place at the present time ; tho rivers are not carrying tho highlands into the sea, and consequently it must not be admitted that earthquakes are really increasing tho elevation of the laud.” It is evident that the object of the writer is to servo the cause of theology, but I cannot help thinking that on this occasion at all events the theologian will exclaim, “ save mo from my friends.” Surely it is at least as religious a theory, and I think has tho advantage of being a true one, that the surface of the earth is kept in its present habitable condition as a dwelling-place for man by the exquisite adaptation with which the aqueous and igneous forces are mad© to neutralize one another, and which has always seemed, to the present writer, at least as good an instance of design as any that can be drawn from the animal or vegetable creation. However, the question that we have to settle is one of fact, not of theory,— 1 * Has the ground here been permanently raised, or has it not 3” I am bound to apologise to you for the length to which these remarks have extended, and I should not venture to ask you to insert them had»not Parliament risen, and had not Wellington been so specially interested in the question. John Gamhell, 8.A., Wellington, 4th November.