Those who are not geologists will probably smile when they hear one declare that wielders of the hammer are extremely conservative--that they are slow to accept novel views, and very tenacious of opinions which have once found favour in their eyes. Nevertheless, such is the case, and well for us that it is so. However captivating, however imposing, however strongly supported by evidence a new view may appear to be, we do well to criticise, to sift the evidence, and to call for more facts and experiments, if such are possible, until the proofs become so strong as to approach as near a demonstration as geologists can in most cases expect such proofs to go. The history of our science, and indeed of most sciences, affords abundant illustration of what I say. How many long years were the views of sub-aërial erosion, as taught by Hutton and Playfair, canvassed and controverted before they became accepted! And even after their general soundness had been established, how often have we heard nominal disciples of these fathers of physical geology refuse to go so far as to admit that the river-valleys of our islands have been excavated by epigene agents! If, as a rule, it takes some time for a novel view to gain acceptance, it is equally true that views which have long been held are only with difficulty discarded. Between the new and the old there is a constant struggle for existence, and if the latter should happen to survive, it is only in a modified form. I have often thought that a history of the evolution of geological theories would make a very entertaining and instructive work. We should learn from it, amongst other things, that the advance of our science has not always been continuous--now and again, indeed, it has almost seemed as if the movement had been retrograde. Knowledge has not come in like an overwhelming flood--as a broad majestic river--but rather like a gently-flowing tide, now advancing, now retiring, but ever, upon the whole, steadily gaining ground. The history I speak of would also teach us that many of the general views and hypotheses which have been from time to time abandoned as unworkable, are hardly deserving of the reproach and ridicule which we in these latter days may be inclined to cast upon them. As the Scots proverb says: "It is easy to be wise behindhand." It could be readily shown that not a few discarded notions and opinions have frequently worked for good, and have rather stimulated than checked inquiry. Such reflections should be encouraging to every investigator, whether he be a defender of the old or an advocate of the new. Time tries all, and each worker may claim a share in the final establishment of the truth.