84 
But first it is most important that the attempt of the Times to 
injure the cause of Arctic discovery, in an article published last 
Saturday (May 24), should be examined ; for if all the argu- 
ments of the enemies of knowledge are summed up in that 
article, they are weak indeed. Such asthey are, these arguments 
are propped up by three incorrect statements which must, in the 
first place, be knocked away. FFirst it is alleged that “men of 
science cannot tell us what are the problems they hope to clear 
up” by Arctic discovery. This assertion is disproved by the 
documents published by the Zimes itself on December 16, in 
which the objects of Arctic exploration are clearly and distinctly 
enumerated. That this enumeration may be, and should be 
made more exhaustive, you pointed out at the time, and 
your suggestions have been adopted. But the objects are clear 
enough, and have been clearly stated. Briefly they are the in- 
vestigation of the geography, hydrography, geology, meteoro- 
logy, fauna, flora, and ethnology of an unknown ‘area covering 
several million square miles of the earth’s surface. Secondly, the 
Times alleges that Arctic Explorers ‘made little of the dangers 
of the proposed expedition.” This is a mistake. Arctic Ex- 
plorers have done nothing of the kind. They are perfectly 
aware of the extent and scope of the dangers, and how they can 
be reduced to a minimum, and they have furnished the Govern- 
ment with the results of their experience. Thirdly, it is asserted 
by the Z#mes that geographers **confidently cited the pending 
close of Mr, Hall’s Expedition as a conclusive fact to be argued 
from.” This also is incorrect. Mr. Hall’s expedition was 
simply mentioned in their address, without any comment, and 
no argument whatever was derived from it ; for the very good 
reason that its history was then unknown. Very strong argu- 
ments, however, will now be based upon the facts stated by the 
boat’s crew of the Polaris. 
These erroneous statements being refuted, the whole argu- 
ment in the Zimes article, falls to pieces. There remains a 
highly-coloured version of the story told by the boats’ crew of 
the Polaris, garnished with sensational sentences, of which the 
following are examples :—‘‘ Death, t a hundred ghastly shapes, 
dogs the shadow of this phantom ship”... “ Are we morally 
justified in exposing human beings to the slow torture of a solitary 
death by famine or by cold?” and the like ; the moral being, that 
because the writer in the 7#es has imagined some fanciful night- 
mare, therefore no Englishman is again to venture into the 
ic Regions. 
ae us 2 to the plain facts. The /o/aris is a vessel wholly 
unsuited for ice navigation ; she was commanded by a landsman, 
and her crew was undiscipl’ned and not under proper control. 
Yet she passed safely through Baffin’s Bay and far up Smith 
Sound, where at least two exploring parties made journeys to 
the north ; she wintered, and was drifted out into Baffin’s Bay 
last summer, where part of the crew deserted with all the boats. 
But she had plenty of provisions, could easily winter in Whale 
or Wolstenholme Sounds, where there are friendly Esquimaux, 
could construct a boat if necessary, and a fleet of whalers will be 
in the ‘‘ North Water,” ready to give assistance, this summer. 
Obyiously the blame of any disasters that may have befallen her 
cannot be imputed to the Arctic Regions. Under the circum- 
stances, she would have been leaky, her crew would have been 
mutinous, and she would have lost her boats in any other climate. 
These events are due to the way in which the expedition was 
organised, not to the temperature. re 
An English Arctic Expedition, consisting of two vessels 
adapted for ice navigation with a picked crew under naval 
discipline, and commanded by an experienced seaman, will 
run no such risks. One vessel, asa depdt, could be stationed 
near the entrance of Smith Sound, while the other pressed to 
the north; so that, in the improbable event of the advanced 
ship being lost, her crew could retreat to the consort. The 
dangers of Arctic exploration are involved in the travelling and 
boat-work, and in exposure to frost-bites and over-fatigue. 
They are not such as Englishmen may not freely and prudently 
encounter in the cause of science and discovery. They are such 
as our ancestors were eager and anxious to meet and overcome, 
and as their descendants, in spite of the 7Zizzes, intend to en- 
counter again and again. They apply to individuals, not to the 
expedition as a body, and have been reduced toa minimum hy 
modern science and experience. The climate is the healthiest in 
the world, the scenery enchanting, the work most interesting 
and fruitful. The Zimes alleges that former Arctic expeditions 
have brought back nothing but ‘‘a few insignificant facts, and a 
multitude of barren conjectures.” This is the exact reverse of 
NATURE 
[May 29, 1873 
Di ee ———e—eeee eee 
the truth. They have brought back a multitude of importan| 
facts in all branches of science, and priceless collections, To 
them is due the lucrative whale and seal-fisheries, great stores of 
knowledge, the materials for such papers as that by Dr. Hooker 
on the Arctic fora, and for many others of similar value. 
The news brought by the boat's crewJof the Po/aris, ifat all 
accurate, is veryimportant. It proves that even such a vessel as 
the /olaris may advance up Smith Sound, in one season, to 
82° 16’ N. Itisstated, also, that at, or near this point, the land, 
both of Greenland and Grinnell Land, was still trending north- 
ward. From such a point, an extended party, with depdt 
parties, organised on McClintock’s principles of sledge 
travelling, could reach the North Pole and return to the ship. 
Another important fact is that the o/aris was beset in 80° 2’ N. 
and drifted out into Baffin’s Bay. This shows that there is not - 
a constant block of ice in the strait, but that the flces drift down 
with the current, leaving, as a consequence, an occasional 
navigable lane between the drifting ice and the land floe. 
These facts are most satisfactory, and increase the prospect of 
a successful exploration of the unknown region by way of Smith 
Sound. I think that you have already announced the nomi- 
nation of an Arctic Committee by the Council of the Royal 
Society, to confer with the Committee of the Geographical 
Society ; and we may fairly anticipate that when these bodies 
again bring the subject to the attention-‘of Her Majesty's Govern- 
ment this summer, the case, both as regards the important objects 
to be attained by Arctic exploration, and the measures to be 
adopted, will be materially strengthened, 
London, May 27 CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM 
Late of H.M.S. Assistance in the Arctic 
Expedition of 1850 51. 
Forbes and Tyndall 
Pror. HUXLEY is ata loss “to discover any excuse for the 
biographer” having published, at pp. 386-7 of the ‘‘ Life and 
Letters of the late Principal Forbes,” a letter, with an extract 
from which he heads his own letter in the last number of 
Nature. For publishing that letter no excuse need be offered, 
because a sufficient reason can be given. 
The discussions regarding the glacier question, and the decision 
of the Council of the Royal Society regarding the Copley Medal 
in the autumn of 1859, are matters well known to all who take 
interest in such subjects. Some further light has been thrown 
upon the history of the latter transaction by the recent letter of 
Prof. Huxley. Neitherinto the overt facts, nor into their secret 
springs, was it my duty as a biographer to enter. But it was 
my duty to record the impression made on Forbes’s mind by the 
treatment he then received. This I did, not by ‘‘ deliberately 
picking expressions out of a private letter,” as Prof. Huxley 
phrases it, but by giving, without note or comment, nearly the 
whole of a letter written by Forbes at the time to his friend Mr. 
A. Wills. 
Instead of objecting to the few lines on this subject which 
have been allowed to appear, Prof. Huxley may rather appre- 
ciate the reserve which has passed over so lightly a transaction in 
which the late Principal Forbes felt that he was deeply wronged. 
But it was the desire of the biographers to exclude, as much as 
possible, all controversial matters, not from any doubt as to the 
justice of Forbes’s claims asa glacier discoverer, but in order, as 
far as might be, to avoid strife. If they have not succeeded in 
doing so as completely as they wished, this has not been their 
fault. When the book was almost through the Drees they found 
themselves, by the appearance of Prof. Tyndall’s work on the 
‘Forms of Water,” constrained to depart somewhat from their 
original intention, and to include two statements which Forbes 
had written on the subject of his glacier discovery, and which are 
now to be found in Appendix A and Appendix B of his ‘* Life.” 
These contain the gist of the whole question, as far as Forbes was 
concerned. Neither the one nor the other has ever yet been refuted 
inany point. If Prof. Huxley desires to justify the action of himself 
and others who opposed Forbes in 1869—and to deal with the 
question in the only way in which the world is at all concerned 
with it—let him try to disprove the facts and refute the state- 
ments contained in these two appendices. If he succeeds in 
this attempt, he will have removed the grounds on which Forbes 
rested his claims to be held as a glacier discoverer. ‘Till this 
has been done, to discuss merely incidental personal allusions is 
to miss the point, and to evade the main issue, 
J. C. SHAIRP 
Houston House, Linlithgowshire, May 26 
