198

HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY.

take a similar view of tlie equally admirable labours of Mr. Adams. Norcan the award of equal merit be withheld, w the ground that Mr. Adamsreserved the secret of his v^^aicnes to himself, while hi. Lo Verrieropenly p r om” 1 < 5 -'<'oa ms results to the world, and thereby put astronomers

possession of the means of actually discovering the planet. Thisobjection is untenable, for the simple reason that it is directly at variancewith acknowledged facts. Mr. Adams communicated liis results to two ofthe most influential astronomers of England, whose co-operation, as wehave already had occasion to remark, sufficed to secure the optical dis-covery of the planet. That the laborious search undertaken at Cambridgewas anticipated as regards the final result by the more simple procedureadopted at Berlin, cannot, without a flagrant violation of the rules of jus-tice, be considered derogatory to the merits of Mr. Adams. It was suf-ficient that he had communicated his results to competent astronomers.It would be totally inconsistent with reason to hold his fame responsiblefor any ulterior proceedings. We have already mentioned the peculiaradvantage enjoyed by the Berlin astronomers in searching for the planet.If a similar facility of search had been accessible at the Observatory ofCambridge, it is admitted by all persons that the planet could not fail tohave been first discovered there*. This is a question, however, whichconcerns Professor Challis, but does not, in the remotest degree, affect thopurely theoretical labours of Mr. Adams.

We have been induced to submit to the reader the foregoing remarks,because we conceive that the brilliant result achieved by the Berlin astro-nomers has had a tendency to foster erroneous ideas relative to the meritsof the various persons, whether mathematicians or astronomers, whoselabours bave been more or less associated with the discovery of the Trans-Uranian planet. It is only, however, by persisting to confound thingstotally dissimilar in their nature, that any such notions can retain a per-manent hold on the mind.

Soon after the discovery of the planet, an attempt was made in thiscountry to exhibit in an unfavourable light the conduct of the astronomersto whom Mr. Adams had communicated his results towards the close ofthe year 1845. They were charged in vehement terms with lukewarm-ness in the cause of science, as well as indifference to the honour of thecountry and the reputation of Mr. Adams, on the ground that they did notinstitute an immediate search for the planet which theory had indicatedso clearly to exist. It was alleged that the execution of this task de-volved more especially upon them, inasmuch as they were the officialastronomers of the country, and that, by neglecting to carry into effect thoproposed search, time w r as allowed for a rival to step into the field and todivide with Mr. Adams the honour attached to the theoretical discovery ofthe planet.

It is hardly necessary to state that this accusation is the offspring of in-discriminating zeal or personal prejudice, rather than the result of a dis-passionate examination of facts. We are confident that the simple perusalof the foregoing account will be amply sufficient to convince any unbiassedmind of the justness of this assertion. As, however, the charge is not desti-tute of plausibility, and as some of our readers, who have not bestowed

* “ Si M. Challis s’en fut servi (une carte des etoiles) au lieu de suivre une marche pluspenible, il n’eut pas manque une decouverte qui echappa en pareille circonstance a Le-monnier et a Lalande."—Extract of a Letter from M. Valz to M. Arago, Comptes Rendits,tome xxiv. p. 880 .