126 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
for the service, the beau-ideal of an Arctic vessel of the present day, with a bow as sharp 
as a knife, the very reverse of the old school, and is now fitting out at Aberdeen at the 
expense of Lady Franklin and other promoters of her noble undertaking. 
“ May her unparalleled efforts to obtain tidings of her brave husband and his gallant 
companions be attended with the results so ardently desired; and if success can be ob¬ 
tained, Captain M‘Clintock is, under Providence, the man to command it! 
“ The good wishes of every civilized nation will attend the expedition now setting 
forth from our shores; and may all who comprise it be restored to their homes in unim¬ 
paired health, and successfully accomplish the object of their glorious mission!” 
Cvmspflttkenxe. 
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NATURAL HISTORY REVIEW AND QUARTERLY JOURNAL 
OF SCIENCE. 
Gentlemen, —The fact of your having honoured my “ Omphalos” with 
a notice in your Journal would not, in the smallest degree, have entitled 
me to he heard at your bar. But as you have opened your pages to a 
somewhat hostile protest against your verdict, I venture to ask the cour¬ 
tesy of a page or two, not so much for a rejoinder to your respected cor¬ 
respondent, Mr. Jukes, as for a few thoughts supplementary to my 
treatise. 
It is asserted by geologists, and generally accepted as an undeniable 
truth, that this world had a history of immeasurable duration, with many 
successive races of plants and animals, before man appeared on the scene. 
The reception of this doctrine rests on two other assertions,—the twin 
pillars on which the edifice stands, and which are assumed to be equally 
stable. First, that the stony records of the earth’s crust, patent to sense, 
absolutely compel us to assent to this long chronology; secondly, that the 
Word of God does not absolutely compel us to reject it. 
The former of these propositions I have considered in “Omphalos;” 
in which I have endeavoured simply to prove that the facts do .not ab¬ 
solutely compel the conclusion in question; that another solution is, at 
least, possible. The object of the book has been greatly misunderstood; 
and my argument has been pronounced a failure, because I have not 
proved the prochronism of the world. But I never proposed to prove this; 
it was enough for me to show that the law existed in creation; and to 
prove the possibility—the bare possibility—that it might have been an 
universal law. 
But though this was enough for me to accomplish in regard to my 
self-imposed task in “ Omphalos,” I have since seen that it was not 
enough in regard to the general question. For the reply is obvious:— 
“ Granting your conclusion as to the bare possibility that the long chro¬ 
nology may be false, yet the voices of ten thousand witnesses impart so 
immense a preponderance of probability in its favour, that it would be 
