"Principles," and if not
then convinced to send him to Pluto. Not but what he has well read the
"Principles!" and largely profited thereby. I know not how carefully you
have read this paper, but I think you did not mention to me that he does
(page 327) (482/2. Ramsay refers the great outlines of the country to
the action of the sea in Tertiary times. In speaking of the denudation
of the coast, he says: "Taking UNLIMITED time into account, we can
conceive that any extent of land might be so destroyed...If to this be
added an EXCEEDINGLY SLOW DEPRESSION of the land and sea bottom, the
wasting process would be materially assisted by this depression" (loc.
cit., page 327).) believe that the main part of his great denudation
was effected during a vast (almost gratuitously assumed) slow Tertiary
subsidence and subsequent Tertiary oscillating slow elevation. So
our high cliff argument is inapplicable. He seems to think his great
subsidence only FAVOURABLE for great denudation. I believe from
the general nature of the off-shore sea's bottoms that it is almost
necessary; do look at two pages--page 25 of my S. American volume--on
this subject. (482/3. "Geological Observations on S. America," 1846,
page 25. "When viewing the sea-worn cliffs of Patagonia, in some parts
between 800 and 900 feet in height, and formed of horizontal Tertiary
strata, which must once have extended far seaward...a difficulty often
occurred to me, namely, how the strata could possibly have been removed
by the action of the sea at a considerable depth beneath its surface."
The cliffs of St. Helena are referred to in illustration of the same
problem; speaking of these, Darwin adds: "Now, if we had any reason
to suppose that St. Helena had, during a long period, gone on slowly
subsiding, every difficulty would be removed...I am much inclined to
suspect that we shall hereafter find in all such cases that the land
with the adjoining bed of the sea has in truth subsided..." (loc. cit.,
pages 25-6).)

The foundation of his views, viz., of one great sudden upheaval, strikes
me as threefold. First, to account for the great dislocations. This
strikes me as the odder, as he admits that a little northwards there
were many and some violent dislocations at many periods during the
accumulation of the Palaeozoic series. If you argue against him, allude
to the cool assumption that petty forces are conflicting: look at
volcanoes; look at recurrent similar earthquakes at sam