PROFESSOR NICHOL

We publish the following letter readily—and, in doing so, we must take blame to ourselves for a very serious fault. We had attributed to Professor Nichol the authorship of an Atheistical volume, now in general circulation, called Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. For this assertion of ours, we had what we deemed good authority, and, we may add, that in circles which take an interest in such subjects, the paternity of the book was generally attributed to this gentleman. We cannot express too much regret for a wrong thus inadvertently committed by The Post. The only, but the most decisive way in which it can be remedied is by the following letter:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUBLIN EVENING POST. 15th May, 1845.

SIR—I have just seen an article in your paper of 13th May, referring to me as the author of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, and containing certain grave charges as to the tendency of the work in question. Entirely avoiding any expression of opinion as to the justice or injustice of these charges, and highly desirous not to have laid upon me the task of dealing with them, I beg to state in this formal and precise manner, that I am not the author of that volume.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

J. P. NICHOL.

The letter has the Cork Post mark, where, we learn, Professor Nichol is now delivering a course of lectures. In the Cork Reporter of Thursday there is a very interesting sketch of a lecture delivered by Doctor Nichol, which concludes in the following terms:—

Dr. Nichol said he was most anxious that no misunderstanding should here exist, because thus alone could the creation of doubts and disagreeable feelings be prevented. And particularly, he had a strong interest in being understood. In the Dublin Evening Post of yesterday his name had been formally connected with charges of Atheism or Materialism, on the ground of an assertion that he was the author of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. He would especially guard against being supposed to pronounce an opinion on that occasion as to the intentions of that book; but, as he wished to stand before his countrymen as under the responsibility accruing from his own thoughts and writings, he considered it right to state that he was not the author of the volume in question. The eloquent lecturer concluded by one of those impressive reflections which is so much the characteristic of his mind, and was loudly cheered.

Our friend, the Reporter, has some remarks in another part of his journal, taking us to task for the unwitting injury we may have inflicted—(though we do not think that can be very serious)—to which, as we feel in some degree obnoxious to the imputation, we need not offer any answer. But it will be found, we imagine, that our original inadvertence will rather have served Doctor Nichol in its results than injured him. He has relieved himself altogether from what—pace philosophorum—we consider a deep odium.