The second letter, that of 1839, is addressed to Dr. Fitton, who had written for the Edinburgh Review a criticism of the "Principles of Geology," in which he had expressed the opinion that Lyell had insufficiently acknowledged the value of Hutton's work. From this charge Lyell defends himself, pointing out that, valuable as were Hutton's contributions to the philosophy of geology, he was by no means the first in the field—that there were also "mighty men of old" to whom he felt bound to do justice, even at the risk of seeming to undervalue the great Scotchman. He points out that Hutton's work occupies a fair amount of space in the section of the "Principles" which is devoted to an historical sketch of the earlier geologists:—
"In my first chapter," he writes, "I gave Hutton credit for first separating geology from other sciences, and declaring it to have no concern with the origin of things;[89] and after rapidly discussing a great number of celebrated writers, I pause to give, comparatively speaking, full-length portraits of Werner and Hutton, giving the latter the decided palm of theoretical excellence, and alluding to the two grand points in which he advanced the science—first, the igneous origin of granite; secondly, that the so-called primitive rocks were altered strata.[90] I dwelt emphatically on the complete revolution brought about by his new views respecting granite, and entered fully on Playfair's illustrations and defence of Hutton.... The mottoes of my first two volumes were especially selected from Playfair's 'Huttonian Theory' because—although I was brought round slowly, against some of my early prejudices, to adopt Playfair's doctrines to the full extent—I was desirous to acknowledge his and Hutton's priority. And I have a letter of Basil Hall's, in which, after speaking of points in which Hutton approached nearer to my doctrines than his father, Sir James Hall, he comments on the manner in which my very title-page did homage to the Huttonians, and complimented me for thus disavowing all pretensions to be the originator of the theory of the adequacy of modern causes."[91]
In the following month Lyell attended a meeting of the British Association at Birmingham, and was invited, together with several of the leading men of science there present, to dine and spend the night at Drayton Manor, the residence of Sir R. Peel, near Tamworth. In a letter to one of his sisters, Lyell gives an interesting sketch of his impressions of the great statesman:—
"Some of the party said next day that Peel never gave an opinion for or against any point from extra-caution, but I really thought that he expressed himself as freely, even on subjects bordering on the political, as a well-bred man could do when talking to another with whose opinions he was unacquainted. He was very curious to know what Vernon Harcourt [the President for that year] had said on the connection of religion and science. I told him of it, and my own ideas, and in the middle of my strictures on the Dean of York's pamphlet[92] I exclaimed, 'By-the-bye, I have only just remembered that he is your brother-in-law.' He said, 'Yes, he is a clever man and a good writer, but if men will not read any one book written by scientific men on such a subject, they must take the consequences.' ... If I had not known Sir Robert's extensive acquirements, I should only have thought him an intelligent, well-informed country gentleman; not slow, but without any quickness, free from that kind of party feeling which prevents men from appreciating those who differ from them, taking pleasure in improvements, without enthusiasm, not capable of joining in a hearty laugh at a good joke, but cheerful, and not preventing Lord Northampton, Whewell, and others from making merry. He is without a tincture of science, and interested in it only so far as knowing its importance in the arts, and as a subject with which a large body of persons of talent are occupied."[93]
The next year (1840) appears to have slipped away uneventfully, for only a single letter serves as a record for the twelvemonth, and that is but a short one addressed to Babbage asking him to look up one or two geological matters during a journey through Normandy to Paris. As it is dated from London on the 11th of August, this looks as if Lyell did not go during the summer farther than Scotland, where he presided over the Geological Section at the meeting of the British Association.[94] The earlier part of 1841 appears to have been equally uneventful; but the summer of that year saw the beginning of a long journey and the opening of a new geological horizon, for Mr. and Mrs. Lyell crossed the Atlantic on a visit to Canada and the United States.
FOOTNOTES:
[66] At King's College and at the Royal Institution. See pp. 71, 72.
[67] Life, Letters, and Journals, vol. i. p. 401.
[68] Huxley, "Man's Place in Nature," p. 121.
[69] Only the skull was found, and that imperfect; moreover, the missing part could not be discovered. The same is true of the other animal remains, so that they could hardly have been victims of the Deluge.