A High Court of Inquiry has been sitting now for a good many years, whose object is to determine a chronological question of much interest. It is no less than the age of the globe on which we live. Counsel have been heard on both sides, and witnesses have been called, and most of the judges have considered that an overwhelming preponderance of testimony is in favour of an immeasurably vast antiquity. A single Witness on the other side, however, has deposed in a contrary sense: and, though he has said but little, some of those who have heard the cause attach such weight to his testimony, that they do not feel satisfied to let it be overborne. Counsel on the former side have, indeed, cross-examined the Witness, and dissected his testimony with much skill, and they contend that what he said has been misunderstood by the minority; and that, as his words may at least bear a sense which would not contradict those of the opposing witness, the clear, copious, and unvarying deposition previously made, ought to command the verdict of the Court. The minority are silenced, but not satisfied; they know not how to give up the Witness on whose veracity they have been wont to rely; but they are unable to answer the arguments brought against him. Counsel for the Brachy-chronology speaks. "We respectfully ask the Court for another hearing. Will our learned brother permit his witness briefly to recapitulate his testimony, and we will endeavour to examine it once more; for we think we shall be able to detect some flaw in it?" Rule granted. WITNESS FOR THE MACRO-CHRONOLOGY. The following, then, is the substance of what the witness deposes. He is not a living witness; his testimony, therefore, is not oral, but written--lithographed, in fact. It consists of a number of documents, which are couched in a language and character not to be understood without some previous study, but yet very capable of translation--very clear and unmistakeable. The following, I say, is a condensed summary of the leading points. If a curious person had watched the process of making the excavations that were preliminary to the boring of the Thames Tunnel, he would have observed that the labourers exposed successive layers of earth, differing much in colour, consistency, and general character. First, an accumulation of soil, consisting of decayed vegetable and animal matter, mingled with broken pottery, and other rubbish of man's production, was removed; then a layer of sand, gravel, and river mud; then a bed of reddish clay; then a layer of clay, mixed with silt or fine sandy mud; then a thin layer of silt, much filled with shells; then a stratum of stiff blue clay; then a layer of clay of more mottled character, containing a portion of silt, and some shells; then a stratum of very firm clay, so solid that it required to be broken with wedges; then a bed of gravel and sand of a green colour; and finally, a similar layer, but of a coarser texture.