[210]

Prove the amount of degradation

In stationary (of course in rising) land grant [infiniteness] time, & grant that will wear away 20 ft deep! the formation denuded could never have extended beyond the 20 ft line, which however must have been the case in Volcanic isld & horizontal strata when worn into gr cliffs ∴ they have not been worn when land stationary or rising. V. (3)

[sketch]

NB This goes wrong the subsidence would be greatest towards [anti….] [illeg] as elevation was therefore deposits more inclined that layer of shelves.

[sketch] where strata highly inclined of course great cliff can be formed land stationary. (H)

The only hypothesis I can invent to account for general structure of coast & slope of bottom in all parts of world is that a great cliff is never formed in horizontal or slightly inclined strata, where land stationary, elevation is in progress – the sea would form a barrier to itself. But a very trifling subsidence would give the sea greater power, & therefore if subsidence very slow land would be eaten into by a successive of nearly flat ledges rising above each other, then if slope of land were greater than these steps on cliff would be formed. – But as bottom covered with sediment & has shape of

[211]

curve of transport, the step ledges must form too steep a slope to be covered equally – therefore form of land, we may presume, is not form of deposit, but slightly owing to elevation from axis.

Now all this reasoning is applicable to if one subsidence be taken instead of period of repose, i.e, the crust of our globe if not rising is sinking. Immediately as much forbidden as [insertion:] & if crust floats or a fluid mass why should it be, the isothermal lines from [2 words illeg] the lines of pressure, perhaps [2 words illeg] keep up a cycle of revolution to the wave of the sea; or winds of the Heavens – a calm for a month would be prodigy stability for epoch & great one

What wonderful argument is this for movement.

If elevation effect if proportion of fluid matter in intervals some would [illeg] shrink as Concepcion sunk after [illeg] elevation so would secular shrinking follow secular elevation

Those who do not think we are bound to endorse the account for the structure of the earth by what they see, they will think this argument based on slight grounds. but I hope others will at least grant that it is necessary to offer some solution of so great a difficulty which has been overlooked.

50 fathom deep (which may be most safely done at St Helena) & considering bottom covered with mud it appears to be physically impossible that this 300 ft of solid rock could have been removed; - especially considering the mud approaches to 10 (?) ? fathoms off shore.-

Mem Subsidence protects any ledges or dikes which once shall have escaped wear & tear near littoral action.

The lofty cliff [illeg] level land, speak of subsidence as clearly as elevated beds of shells do if rise!!!

All these views harmonize beautifully with coral theory alternations of great sandstone of Paris – Secondary deposits of Europe. My view of active volcanic islds being points subject to propulsion from below &c &c – In coral theory it will be advisable to state that subsidence of some amount & not small subsidence between elevations –

The leeward shores of great lakes would give excellent test of structure ? are there charts?

(3) Now very broad flats do not occur in nature separating cliffs from moderately deep & inclined bottom of sea – wherefore we conclude the periods of stationary have not been very long. – if elevation were going on, if very slow that flat could be cut down P* if quicker a notched slope formed.

*P by method P. any thickness might be cut down but not horizontal extent (with sloping) bottom to seaward. This case applies to case (H) inclined strata cut during stationary period in fact there is no difference between effect of stationary & elevation.

If the "curve of transport" was certain solid rock (or if many a layer of sediment over solid rock which from ships anchoring is not probable) one might suspect & that the greater time which water had acted on each outer point than this one nearer to the shore might have produced it but the even slope. I think quite destroys the conjecture.

The sea had acted above A whole time new in consuming A, B, C. D. But taking A as

[Diagram]