grounds, rejected, or were, for the first time, shown susceptible of explanation. Amongst the more noticeable results were the pointing out that fissures and fractures of rock or of incoherent formations were but secondary effects, and, in the latter, were, in fact, generally of the nature of inceptive landslips. This last was not accepted, I believe, by geologists at the time; but the correctness of the views then propounded as to earth fissures—the nature of the spouting from them of water or mud—the appearances taken for smoke issuing from them, etc.—have since been fully confirmed, first, by my own observations upon the effects of the Great Neapolitan Earthquake of 1857, and more lately by those of Dr. Oldham upon the Earthquake of Cachar (India), where he was enabled to observe fissures of immense magnitude, the nature of the production of which he has well described and explained in the "Proceedings, Geological Society, London, 1872."

The relations between meteorological phenomena proper and Earthquakes have always been a subject of popular belief and superstition.

This was here carefully discussed, and with the result of disproving any connection, or, if any, but of an indirect nature. I also, to some extent, towards the end of this Report, discussed the question of the possible nature of the impulse itself which originates the shock; I showed that it must be of the nature of a blow, and ventured to offer conjecturally five possible causes of the impulse:

1. Sudden fractures of rock, resulting from the steady and slow increase of elevatory pressure.
2. Sudden evolution (under special conditions) of steam.
3. Sudden condensation of steam, also under special conditions.
4. Sudden dislocations in the rocky crust of the earth, through pressure acting in any direction.
5. Occasionally through the recoil due to explosive effects at volcanic foci (p. 79-80).

The first and last of these I am, through subsequent light, disposed now to withdraw or greatly to modify.

The first, the supposed "snap and jar, occasioned by the sudden and violent rupture of solid rock masses," to which Mr. Scrope, in his very admirable work on Volcanoes, is disposed to refer the impulse of earthquake shocks (Scrope, 2nd edit., p. 294), I believe may be proved on acknowledged physical principles—when applied to the known elasticities and extensibilities of rocks, and keeping in view the small thicknesses fractured at the same instant—to be capable of only the most insignificant impulsive effects; and if we also take into consideration that strata, if so fractured, are necessarily not free, but surrounded by others above and below, any such impulsive effect emanating from fracture may be held as non-existent or impossible. In the statement of his views which follows, and in objecting to my second and third possible causes (p. 295-296, headed "Objections to Mallet's Theory"), Mr. Scrope appears to me to have fallen into the error of assuming that the nature of the impulse, or the cause producing it, forms any part of "my theory of earthquake movement," or in anywise affects it. I carefully guarded against this in the original Paper ("Transactions, Royal Irish Academy," Vol. XXI., p. 60, and again, p. 97), when I stated "it is quite immaterial to the truth of my theory of earthquake motion what view be adopted, or what mechanism be assigned, to account for the original impulse."

As regards the fifth conjecture suggested by me, I am now, with better knowledge and larger observation of volcanic phenomena, not prepared to admit any single explosion at volcanic vents of a magnitude sufficient to produce by its recoil an earthquake wave of any importance, or extending to any great distance in the earth's crust. The rock of 200 tons weight, said to have been projected nine miles from the crater of Cotopaxi, which I quoted from Humboldt as an example,[E] I believe to be as purely mythical as the rock (bloc rejetté) of perhaps one-sixth of that weight which, previous to the late eruption, lay in the middle of the Atria dell Cavallo, and which it was roundly affirmed had been blown out of the crater, but which in reality had at some time rolled down from near the top of the cone, after having been dislodged from some part of the upper lip of the crater walls, where, as its wonderful hardness and texture and its enamel-like surface showed, it had been roasted for years probably.

Nor do I believe in the sudden blowing away of one-half the crater and cone of Vesuvius, or of any other volcano, at one effort, however affirmed.

Nothing more than conjecture as to the nature of the impulse producing great or small Earthquakes can, I believe, as yet be produced. That there is some one master mechanism productive of most of the impulses of great shocks is highly probable, but that more causes than one may produce these impulses, and that the causes operative in small and long repeated shocks, like those of Visp-Comrie and East Haddam, differ much from those producing great Earthquakes, is almost certain.

We shall be better prepared to assign all of these when we have admitted a true theory of volcanic action, and so are better able to see the intimate relations in mechanism between seismic and volcanic actions.

It is not difficult meanwhile to assign the very probable mechanism of those comparatively petty repercussions which are experienced in close proximity to volcanic vents when in eruption, and which, though certainly seismic in their nature, and powerful enough, as upon the flanks of Etna, to crack and fissure well-built church-towers, can scarcely be termed Earthquakes.

In my First Report I stated that almost nothing was known then of the distribution of recorded Earthquakes in time or in space over our globe's surface, and I proposed the formation and discussion of a complete catalogue of all recorded Earthquakes, with this in view.

This was approved by the Council of the British Association and at once undertaken by me, with the zealous and efficient co-operation of my eldest son, Dr. J. W. Mallet. Nearly the whole of the Second British Association Report, of 1851, is occupied with the account of the experiments as to the transit rate of artificially made shocks in sand and granite, as already referred to.

The Third Report, of 1852-1854, contains the whole of this, "The Earthquake Catalogue of the British Association" (of which, through the liberality of that body, more than one hundred copies were distributed freely), in which are given, in columnar form, the following particulars, from the earliest known dates to the end of 1842:

1. The date and time of day, as nearly as recorded.
2. The locality or place of occurrence.
3. The direction, duration, and number of shocks so far recorded.
4. Phenomena connected with the sea—great sea-waves, tides, etc.
5. Phenomena connected with the land—meteorological phenomena preceding and succeeding. Secondary phenomena—all minor or remarkable phenomena recorded.
6. The authority for the record.

Though most materially assisted by the previous labours and partial catalogues of Von Hoff, Cotte, Hoffman, Merrian, and, above all, of Perrey, the preparation of this catalogue—which demanded visits to the chief libraries of Europe, and the collating of some thousands of authors in various languages and of all time—was a work of great and sustained labour, which, except for my dear son's help, I