429 
or ‘ sneering’ in the few words you quote from Victoria Toto Ccelo ; or, 
Modern Astronomy Recast , where I refer to your Handbook. I am glad to 
say they do not ; nor can I. I regret, of course, that you think yourself 
aggrieved, and shall cheerfully comply with your request to append a copy of 
your letter in a future edition. I shall also, so far as I can, make the 
contents of your letter public where my own book is likely to be known. 
“ I may venture to observe, however, that there is nothing in your work 
to show that you were not prepared to maintain the accuracy of the so-called 
‘ experimental proof’ of the old velocity of light to which you made allusion ; 
and I profess I do not understand on what grounds you can now ‘ entertain 
a high opinion’ of those experiments — which, as I have shown (pp. 38 and 
48 of Viet. Tot. Ccelo), have been cited as proving, till lately, ‘ within the 
77-millionth part of a second,’ that the velocity of light was 192,000 miles 
per second, and more recently (by Mr. Hind) as proving it now to be only 
185,170 miles per second ! Perhaps you will afford the public some expla- 
nation of this in the second edition of your own work. 
“ As regards your remark that ‘ the general question is one which you can 
scarcely believe ought to be argued ’ ! I confess it puzzles me ; especially 
when read in connection with your P.S. In my opinion the greatest injury 
is done to science, in the present day, by what deserves no other name than 
scientific credulity ; and the general public are, in fact, imposed upon by 
quasi facts in science being readily taken for granted and repeated (merely 
because ‘believed’) in books of scientific pretension, by one author after 
another, without the question of their real accuracy or error being ever 
argued. 
“You could scarcely have read through Victoria Toto Coelo when you 
wrote, or you would scarcely have asked me 1 to point out any real errors 
in your work’ ! Some months ago I sent you a copy of The Mechanics 
of the Heavens (which, though not acknowledged, was not returned through 
the Post-office), and it draws attention to some facts, bearing on the 
general question, which affect the whole basis of your Handbook, so far as 
Physical Astronomy is concerned. When you have read, also, my Victoria 
Toto Ccelo, you will find I have not shrunk from pointing out to the public 
the innumerable errors and absurd contradictions that are now professed to 
be believed by astronomers, and which are to be found repeated in your 
Handbook, as in other popular works. 
“ If, however, you will direct my attention to anything in your book not 
to be found in other works, and which you are prepared to defend as 
accurate, I shall certainly devote special attention to it publicly, whether it 
agrees or disagrees with anything I have publicly advanced. 
“ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
“ George F. Chambers, Esq. “ J. REDDIE. 
&c. &c. &c.” 
“ The passage quoted by Mr. Chambers is a foot-note having reference to 
the words in italics contained in the following extract from Mr. J. R. 
Hind’s letter to the Times of 17th September, 1863, in which he states some 
of the consequences of the sun’s mean distance from the earth having been 
recently reduced from 95 millions to 91 millions of miles ; — the principal 
parts of which letter are given in Victoria Toto Ccelo ; viz. : — 
“ ‘ The earth’s mean distance becomes 91,328,000 miles, being a reduction 
of 4,036,000. The circumference of her orbit 599,194,000 miles, being a 
diminution of 25,360,000. Her mean hourly velocity 65,460 miles [instead 
of 68,000]. The diameter of the sun 850,100 miles, which is smaller by 
nearly 38,000. The distances, velocities, and dimensions of all the members 
