For myself, I may be permitted here to say that I have never shared this feeling of indifference and unconcern. As far back as the year 1868, only a month after Lord Kelvin's first presentation of his threefold argument in favour of limiting the age of the earth, I gave in my adhesion to the propriety of restricting the geological demands for time. I then showed that even the phenomena of denudation, which, from the time of Hutton downwards, had been most constantly and confidently appealed to in support of the inconceivably vast antiquity of our globe, might be accounted for, at the present rate of action, within such a period as 100 millions of years.[85] To my mind it has always seemed that whatever tends to give more precision to the chronology of the geologist, and helps him to a clearer conception of the antiquity with which he has to deal, ought to be welcomed by him as a valuable assistance in his inquiries. And I feel sure that this view of the matter has now become general among those engaged in geological research. Frank recognition is made of the influence which Lord Kelvin's persistent attacks have had upon our science. Geologists have been led by his criticisms to revise their chronology. They gratefully acknowledge that to him they owe the introduction of important new lines of investigation, which link the solution of the problems of geology with those of physics. They realise how much he has done to dissipate the former vague conceptions as to the duration of geological history, and even when they emphatically dissent from the greatly restricted bounds within which he would now limit that history, and when they declare their inability to perceive that any further reform of their speculations in this subject is needful, or that their science has placed herself in opposition to the principles of physics, they none the less pay their sincere homage to one who has thrown over geology, as over so many other departments of natural knowledge, the clear light of a penetrating and original genius.