xxiv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE. 



English investigations, as I believe, were not quite so extensive as yours. They were 

 known to me earlier than yours." The rest of the letter relates to the name proposed 

 for the new planet. 



Le Verrier's reply, of October 16, was written under a sense of injustice and irritation 

 produced by Herschel's letter in the Athemxum, which he considers " bien mauvaise et 

 bien injuste pour moi." He feels very much hurt that Herschel should have said that 

 he should not have felt justified in expressing himself so confidently at Southampton if 

 his results had not been independently corroborated by Adams's work. He gives a 

 succinct account in historical order of his own publications on the subject, and, in con- 

 nexion with the paper of June 1, 1846, refers to Airy's letter of June 26, 1846, which he 

 says shows that at that time Airy had no precise information with respect to the position 

 of the planet, and that he was even surprised that he (Le Verrier) had placed it where 

 he had, " parce qu'ainsi situe'e elle ne lui paraissait pas rendre compte des inexactitudes 

 du rayon vecteur." With reference to Adams he writes, " Pourquoi Mr Adams aurait-il 

 garde le silence depuis quatre mois ? Pourquoi n'aurait-il parle des le mois de juin s'il 

 eut eu de bonnes raisons a donner? Pourquoi attend-on que 1'astre ait e"te vu dans 

 les lunettes ? " He appeals to Airy to defend his rights, and states that he has documents 

 to prove that on September 28 and 29 Challis was still searching for the planet " sur mes 

 indications." The Astronomer Royal's reply to this letter contained a statement of the 

 facts with regard to Adams's work and the search for the planet. 



The French astronomers were at first very unwilling to admit that Adams had any 

 rights whatever in connexion with the planet, either as an independent discoverer or 

 otherwise : and Arago, the secretary of the Academy, was especially violent in his de- 

 nunciations. Le Verrier, who had at first inclined to the name of Neptune for the planet, 

 delegated the right to name it to Arago, who insisted that it should be called Le Verrier. 

 It is unnecessary to enter further into the discussions which took place on this subject : 

 a very fair view of the whole matter was taken by Biot, and ultimately the name of 

 Neptune was adopted by general consent. 



Strange as it may seem, the course of events in this country was somewhat similar, 

 it being contended by some English astronomers that the fact that Adams's results had 

 not been publicly announced deprived him of all claims in relation to the discovery. 

 The recognition of the merit of Adams's researches was mainly due to the warm and 

 generous advocacy of two Cambridge men, Sedgwick and Sheepshanks. 



Adams's determination of the orbit of the new planet was completed by October 



1845, and by this date his results were in the possession of Challis and the Astronomer 

 Royal, and yet no announcement whatever was made with respect to them until October 3, 



1846. It is a most striking fact in the history of science that researches of such novelty 

 and importance could have been known to two official astronomers besides their author 

 for nearly a year without any steps being taken to make them public. The causes which 

 produced this result are necessarily peculiar, and require to be examined in some detail. 



Adams, having completed his determination, took the results in person to the Royal 

 Observatory, in the hope that steps would forthwith be taken to find the planet. He 

 was disappointed at not seeing the Astronomer Royal, and probably had expected more 

 encouragement than the letter he received a fortnight afterwards with the enquiry relative 

 to the radius vector. Regarding this as a matter of trifling importance, he delayed to 



