regard; and MM. Felix Roubaud,
Legrande, and Caffe, as delegates of the scientific press, proposed to
the medical body, and to the scientific world in Paris, to invite
Lescarbault to a banquet in the Hotel du Louvre on January 18.

The announcement of the supposed discovery caused astronomers to
re-examine records of former observations of black spots moving across
the sun. Several such records existed, but they had gradually come to be
regarded as of no real importance. Wolff of Zurich published a list of
no fewer than twenty such observations made since 1762. Carrington added
many other cases. Comparing together three of these observations, Wolff
found that they would be satisfied by a planet having a period of
revolution of 19 days, agreeing fairly with the period of rather more
than 19-1/3 days inferred by Leverrier for Lescarbault's planet. But
the entire set of observations of black spots require that there should
be at least three new planets travelling between Mercury and the sun.
Many observers also set themselves the task of searching for Vulcan, as
the supposed new planet was called. They have continued fruitlessly to
observe the sun for this purpose until the present time.

While the excitement over Lescarbault's discovery was at its height,
another observer impugned not only the discovery but the honesty of the
discoverer.

M. Liais, a French astronomer of considerable skill, formerly of the
Paris Observatory, but at the time of Lescarbault's achievement in the
service of the Brazilian Government, published a paper, 'Sur la Nouvelle
Planete annoncee par M. Lescarbault,' in which he endeavoured to
establish the four following points:--

First, the observation of Lescarbault was never made.

Secondly, Leverrier was mistaken in considering that a planet such as
Vulcan might have escaped detection when off the sun's face.

Thirdly, that Vulcan would certainly have been seen during total solar
eclipses, if the planet had a real objective existence.

Fourthly, M. Leverrier's reasons for believing that the planet exists
are based on the supposition that astronomical observations are more
precise than they really are.

Probably, Liais's objections would have had more weight with Leverrier
had the fourth point been omitted. It was rash in a former subordinate
to impugn the verdict of the chief of the Paris Observatory on a matter
belonging to that special department of astronomy which an observatory
chief