it cannot be "imagined" otherwise.

"Can it then be imagined that the Astronomer Royal received such results
from Mr. Adams, supported as they were by Professor Challis's[251] valuable
testimony as to their probable accuracy, and did not bring the French
astronomer acquainted with them, especially as he was aware that his friend
was engaged in matters bearing directly upon these results?"

The whole argument the author styles "evidence which I consider it
difficult to refute." He ends by calling upon certain persons, of whom I am
one, to "see ample justice done." This is the duty of every one, according
to his opportunities. So when the reputed author--the article being
anonymous--was, in 1849, proposed as a Fellow of the Astronomical Society,
I joined--if I remember right, I originated--an opposition to his election,
until either the authorship should be denied, or a proper retraction made.
The friends of the author neither denied the first, nor produced the
second: and they judged it prudent to withdraw the proposal. Had I heard of
any subsequent repentance, I would have taken some other instance, instead
of this: should I yet hear of such a thing, I will take care to notice it
in the continuation of this list, which I confidently expect, life and
health permitting, to be able to make in a few years. This much may be
said, that the author, in a lecture on the subject, given in 1849, and
published with his name, did _not_ repeat the charge.

[The libel was published in the _Mechanics' Magazine_,[252] (vol. for 1846,
pp. 604-615): and the editor supported it as follows, (vol. for 1847, p.
476). In answer to Mr. Sheepshanks's charitable hope that he had been
hoaxed, {142} he says: "Mr. Sheepshanks cannot certainly have read the
article referred to.... Severe and inculpatory it is--unjust some may deem
it (though we ourselves are out of the number.)... A 'hoax' forsooth! May
we be often the dupes of such hoaxes!" He then goes on to describe the
article as directed against the Astronomer Royal's alleged neglect to give
Mr. Adams that "encouragement and protection" which was his due, and _does
not hint one word_ about the article containing the charge of having
secretly and fraudulently transmitted news of Mr. Adams's researches to
France, that an Englishman might not have the honor of the discovery. Mr.
Sheepshanks having called this a "deliberate calumny," without a particle
of proof or probability to support it, the edit