205 
imagined there must be several rings of invisible meteoric 
bodies revolving between the sun and Mercury, and between 
the orbits of some of the other planets, in order to enable him 
to balance the solar system upon the calculations of theo- 
retical astronomy. When the sun’s distance, however was 
recently reduced by four millions of miles, and the earth’s 
whole mass reduced by one-tenth, the theoretical necessity for 
these imagined rings of meteors was no longer the same; but 
they seem to be such very great favourites at the present 
time, that the conception of their existence has been allowed 
to remain undisturbed. Even the few cold days we had a 
week ago have been publicly attributed to “ probably the inter- 
vention of a ring of meteors coming between us and the sun ” 
instead of to intervening clouds or fogs, or other ordinary 
meteorological causes. In Mr. MitchelFs paper, I need scarcely 
sa y, you will find no such extravagant theories advanced 
but. a very complete account of all that is known on the 
subject, with an honest and truly scientific confession of our 
real ignorance of the causes of all the various classes of 
meteoric phenomena. 
In to-day’s Morning Post, I find this account of a paper 
read by Professor A. Herschel before the Royal Institution, 
last 1' nday, on the same subject. He throws out a theory of 
his own as regards the origin of meteors— namely, that the 
zodiacal light is emitted from an immense number of small 
solid particles surrounding the sun in the form of an elongated 
spheroid, or double cone, and that the meteors are constructed 
from these particles. This theory has at least this advantage 
over others, of not having been hitherto proved to be falla- 
cious; but, the report goes on to say, that the explanation he 
gave of it and of the formation of meteors was so mistv and 
obscure as to throw little light on the causes of the phenomena 
which meteors present.— So, you see, we are again brought to 
our own Vice-President’s conclusion on the subject, namely 
tnat we are simply ignorant. J 3 
We have also devoted no less than three evenings to the 
discussion of the Credibility of Darwinism , which was advo- 
cated chivalrously by Mr. Warington, although not himself a 
convert to the truth of Mr. Darwin's views, with the intention 
°- claiming for the theory a fair consideration, apart from 
prejudice, as a scientific hypothesis that may be entertained 
as jpnma facie possible and credible. As I ventured to differ 
materially from Mr. Warington upon this subject, I shall say 
o nmg here as regards this controversy, except that I think 
the discussion, when printed in our Journal, will show that 
