It is singular how completely the supporter of each rival view has succeeded in overthrowing the arguments of his opponent. Certainly Maury has shown with complete success that the inconstant trade-winds cannot account for the constant Gulf current, which does not even flow before them, but, in places, exactly against their force. And the reasoning of Sir John Herschel seems equally cogent, for certainly the flow of water from equatorial towards polar regions ought from the first to have an eastward, instead of a westward motion; whereas the equatorial current, of which the Gulf Stream is but the continuation, flows from east to west, right across the Atlantic. Equally strange is it to find that each of these eminent men, having read the arguments of the other, reasserts, but does not effectually defend, his own theory, and repeats with even more damaging effect his arguments against the rival view. Yet one or other theory must at least point to the true view, for the Atlantic is subject to no other agencies which can for a moment be held to account for a phenomenon of such magnitude as the Gulf Stream. It appears to me, that on a close examination of the Gulf Stream mechanism, the true mainspring of its motion can be recognised. Compelled to reject the theory that the trade-winds generate the equatorial current westward, let us consider whether Herschel’s arguments against the ‘heat theory’ may not suggest a hint for our guidance. He points out that an overflow from the equator polewards would result in an eastward, and not in a westward, current. This is true. It is equally true that a flow of water towards the equator would result in a westward current. But no such flow is observed. Is it possible that there may be such a flow, but that it takes place in a hidden manner? Clearly there may be. Submarine currents towards the equator would have precisely the kind of motion we require, and if any cause drew them to the surface near the equator, they would account in full for the great equatorial westward current.