307 
doubt whether he had ever used a telescope for observation. The fact was 
that Adams was writing his planetary theory, previous to his offering the 
hint to look after the perturbations of Uranus ; the aberrations of which from 
the supposed known law of gravitation had been observed by observers, and 
could not be accounted for by the effect of any of the then known planets. 
The next question was, Suppose you start the hypothesis of an additional 
planet, will that account for it ? And he was supposed to tell Challis where 
to look for it, and Challis looked. The same process was carried out by 
Leverrier, with a hint of Adams’s plan from Airy, who had the plan which 
Leverrier carried out ; for he was more fortunate in his observation, and 
found the planet. But Mr. Reddie was the first to draw our attention here 
to the fact which was established, that the planet was not discovered where 
it was supposed to be ; that the place where the planet was supposed to be 
and the observed facts were most discordant, taking the calculations of either 
Adams or Leverrier ; and that there was not that scientific agreement between 
the observations of the two distinct observers which was supposed to exist. 
Mr. Titcomb. — As I see some young friends here, I think it important 
to make a few observations on the intense pleasure and profit which we 
gain through intelligence and reading. There are numbers of persons who 
toil painfully through the British Museum or the Kensington Museum for 
want of an intelligent acquaintance with the facts of the case before them, 
and the nature of the topics suggested to them by what they see. I never feel 
my own ignorance so much as when I go through certain departments of those 
vast magazines of science and learning ; but in certain departments I feel at 
home, and I have an intelligent enjoyment of them, because I can observe 
minutely, and see things which I otherwise should not be able to see. I 
never feel the importance of having thoroughly studied one department of 
knowledge so much as on such an occasion, nor the miserable consequence 
of not having had time to study the others. It is utterly impossible to study 
all, however ; and it is better to have a thorough acquaintance with one 
than a little knowledge of all. It is one of the advantages of a paper 
like this that we may learn to feel more and more that we never can know 
too much ; and that therefore we should try to take advantage of what we 
read on practical occasions, such as when we visit museums, in order to 
reduce our reading to practice, and gain fresh intelligence and enjoyment. 
Mr. Row. — This is a strong illustration of the point maintained in the 
paper as to the difference between the observer of fact and the reasoner : — I 
do not see by what argument the physical philosopher is to infer that design 
does not exist because he is an observer, any more than I am to infer that it 
does. That is a point where observers get wrong, and go a step beyond their 
own province. It is a plain matter of pure reasoning whether design exists 
or not. To quote a person like Darwin — supposing that he denies it — is no 
authority that design does not exist in creation. He and other men of the 
same stamp are no doubt authorities in their own department, but when 
they go beyond that, and infer as part of their science that there is no such 
thing as design in creation, they get out of their province altogether. I 
