The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 17 / Brummitt, Dan B.

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Great Events by Famous Historians, Vol.
17, by Charles Francis Horne

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: The Great Events by Famous Historians, Vol. 17

Author: Charles Francis Horne

Release Date: November 19, 2003 [EBook #10128]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GREAT EVENTS 17 ***




Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Keith M. Eckrich, Tom Allen and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team.





VOL. XVII

THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS

A comprehensive and readable account of the world's history,
emphasizing the more important events, and presenting these as
complete narratives in the master-words of the most eminent
historians.

Non-sectarian, non-partisan and non-sectional.

On the plan evolved from a consensus of opinions gathered from the
most distinguished scholars of America and Europe, including brief
introductions by specialists to connect and explain the celebrated
narratives, arranged chronologically, with thorough indices,
bibliographies, chronologies, and courses of reading.

Editor-in-Chief: Rossiter Johnson, LL.D.

Associate Editors: Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. and John Rudd, LL.D.

With a staff of specialists




CONTENTS of VOLUME XVII


AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE OF THE GREAT EVENTS, Charles F. Horne

(1844) THE INVENTION OF THE TELEGRAPH, Alonzo B. Cornell

(1846) REPEAL OF THE ENGLISH CORN LAWS, Justin McCarthy

(1846) THE DISCOVERY OF NEPTUNE, Sir Oliver Lodge

(1846) THE ACQUISITION OF CALIFORNIA, Henry B. Dawson

(1847) THE FALL OF ABD-EL-KADER, Edgar Sanderson

(1847) THE MEXICAN WAR, John Bonner

(1847) FAMINE IN IRELAND, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy

(1848) MIGRATIONS OF THE MORMONS, Thomas L. Kane

(1848) THE REFORMS OF PIUS IX; HIS FLIGHT FROM ROME, Francis Bowen

(1848) THE REVOLUTION OF FEBRUARY IN FRANCE, Francois P.G. Guizot and
       Mme. Guizot de Witt

(1848) REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS IN GERMAN, C. Edmund Maurice

(1848) THE REVOLT IN HUNGARY, Arminius Vembery

(1848) THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN CALIFORNIA, John S. Hittell

(1849) THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC, Jessie White Mario

(1849) LIVINGSTONE'S AFRICAN DISCOVERIES, David Livingstone and Thomas
       Hughes

(1851) THE COUP D'ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, Alexis de Tocqueville

(1851) THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN AUSTRALIA, Edward Jenks

(1854) THE RISE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, Abraham Lincoln

(1854) THE OPENING OF JAPAN, Matthew C. Perry

(1855) THE CAPTURE OF SEBASTOPOL, Sir Edward B. Hamley and Sir Evelyn
       Wood

(1857) THE INDIAN MUTINY, J. Talboys Wheeler

(1859) THE BATTLES OF MAGENTA and SOLFERINO, Pietro Orsi

(1859) DARWIN PUBLISHES HIS ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Charles Robert Darwin

(1860) THE KINGDOM OF ITALY ESTABLISHED, Giuseppe Garibaldi and John
       Webb Probyn

(1861) THE EMANCIPATION OF RUSSIAN SERFS, Andrew D. White and Nikolai
       Turgenieff

(1844-1861) UNIVERSAL CHRONOLOGY, Daniel Edwin Wheeler




ILLUSTRATIONS:


The mutinous Sepoys blown from the mouths of cannon by the English at
Cawnpore, Painting by Basil Verestchagin.

Charge of the Six Hundred at Balaklava, Painting by Stanley Berkeley.




AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE (Tracing briefly the causes, connections, and
consequences of the great events.)


THE TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY, Charles F. Horne

In the year 1844 electricity, last and mightiest of the servants of man,
was seized and harnessed and made to do practical work. A telegraph line
was erected between Washington and Baltimore. [Footnote: See _Invention
of the Telegraph_.] In 1846 mathematics achieved perhaps the greatest
triumph of abstract science. It pointed out where in the heavens there
should be a planet, never before known by man. Strong telescopes were
directed to the spot and the planet was discovered. [Footnote: See _The
Discovery of Neptune_.] Man had found guides more subtle and more
accurate than his own five ancient senses. The age of figures, the age
of electricity, began.

The changes were symbolic, perhaps, of the more rapid rate at which the
forces of society were soon to move. Over all Europe and America great
events were shaping themselves with lightning speed. Tremendous changes
political and economic, social and scientific, were hurrying to an
issue.


THE MEXICAN WAR

In America the Mexican War, vast in its territorial results, still more
so in its effect upon society, broke out in 1846 over the admission of
Texas to the United States. The superior fighting strength of the more
northern race was at once made evident. Small bodies of United States
troops repeatedly defeated far larger numbers of the Mexican militia.
The entire northern half of Mexico was soon occupied by the enemy.
Expeditions, half of conquest, half of exploration, seized New Mexico,
California, and all the vast region which now composes the southwestern
quarter of the United States. [Footnote: See _The Acquisition of
California_.]

Farther south, however, the more populous region wherein lay the chief
Mexican cities remained resolute in its defiance; and the Washington
Government despatched against it that truly marvellous expedition under
General Scott. The heroisms and the triumphs of Scott's spectacular
campaign deserve to be sung in epic form. The dubious justice of the war
was forgotten in its overwhelming success. From the captured Mexican
capital the conquerors dictated such peace terms as added to the United
States almost half the territory of her helpless neighbor. Europe at
last awoke to the fact that there was but one Power on the American
continent, a power with which even the mightiest monarch could ill
afford to quarrel. [Footnote: See _The Mexican War_.] The very year in
which the final treaty of peace was signed (1848) the Mormons, a
religious sect, finding themselves unwelcome and out of place in
Illinois, moved westward in a body. Enduring every hardship, every
privation, perishing by hundreds in the trackless deserts, captured and
put to torture by the Indians, they still persevered in their migration,
and, halting at last in the valleys of Utah, began the settlement of the
Central West. [Footnote: See _Migrations of the Mormons_.]

Also in that same year, gold was discovered in California. Thousands of
eager adventurers flocked thither, and thus the vast wilderness that
Mexico had lightly surrendered had hardly become United States territory
ere it was filled with people, not listless semi-savages, but eager,
energetic men, resolute and resourceful. The West joined the march of
progress; it doubled the wealth and prowess of the East. [Footnote: See
_Discovery of Gold in California_.]


THE UPRISING OF THE PEOPLES

Important indeed was that year of 1848, noteworthy above most in the
story of mankind. In Europe it witnessed the greatest of all the
outbursts of democracy. The common people, easily suppressed by the
armies of the Holy Alliance in 1820, had been subdued with difficulty in
1830. Now in 1848 they rose again. Their gradual accumulation of power
and passion would soon be irresistible. Even the petted armies of
autocracy became possessed with the new belief in mankind's brotherhood.

This time the outburst began in Italy. Mazzini, the celebrated founder
of the political society "Young Italy," inspired his countrymen with
something of his own ardent devotion to the cause of liberty and Italian
union. Then in 1846 Pius IX, last of the heads of the Roman Church to
possess a temporal authority as well, ascended the throne of the Papal
dominions. The new Pope was in sympathy with the democratic spirit of
the times, and he established in his own States a constitutional
government, granting to his people more and more of power as he judged
them fitted for it. Soon, however, the most radical elements asserted
themselves in the new Government. All that the Pope could find it in his
heart to grant, seemed to them not half enough. The mighty spirit which
he had let loose broke from his control. Before the close of 1848 there
were riots, fighting in the streets; the Pope's chief counsellor was
murdered, and he himself had to flee by night in secrecy, a fugitive
from Rome. [Footnote: See _The Reforms of Pius IX: His Flight from
Rome_.]

Ere matters had reached this pass, the sudden impulse given by Rome to
democratic government had spread like wildfire over the whole of Europe.
Thrones everywhere seemed crumbling to the dust. In January, 1848, the
people of Sicily revolted against their tyrant king and formed a
republic. Southern Italy, which had been part of the same kingdom,
compelled the sovereign to grant a constitution. Other Italian States
followed the example of rebellion. All Europe apparently had been but
waiting for the spark. In France, dissatisfaction with the
"tradesman-King," Louis Philippe, had long been bitter. In February,
1848, there was an open rebellion, Louis abdicated, and a provisional
government was formed, which proclaimed the land a republic. [Footnote:
See _The Revolution of February in France_.]

There was no fear now lest the other Powers interfere. Each Continental
monarch was over-busy at home. Rebellion was everywhere. Every one of
the lesser German States secured a constitution; and the inhabitants
summoned those of Prussia and Austria to join them in establishing a
single central government, either republic or empire, a "United
Germany." On March 18th the Prussian capital, Berlin, was the seat of a
savage street battle between citizens and the royal troops. Not until it
had raged all day and upward of two hundred persons had been slain did
the Prussian monarch, Frederick William IV, weaken and proclaim a
constitution. [Footnote: See _Revolutionary Movements in Germany_.]

Austria, the stronghold of autocracy, the land of Prince Metternich,
high-priest of repression, had proven as little ready as her neighbors
to withstand the sudden storm. On March 13th the people of Vienna rose
in most unexpected revolt, and Metternich, escaping from the city in a
washerwoman's cart, fled to England. "We were prepared for everything,"
he lamented, "but a democratic pope."

The whole heterogeneous empire of Austria seemed to fall apart at once.
The Hungarians rose in arms to fight for independence. The Bohemians
expelled the Austrian troops from Prague. In Italy the Northern
Provinces followed the example set them in the South. The people of
Milan attacked the Austrian garrison and expelled it after four days of
fighting. Venice reasserted her ancient independence. The King of
Piedmont and Sardinia, declaring himself the champion of Italian unity,
ordered the Austrian armies to leave the country, and marched his forces
against them. The other little States hastened to accept his leadership
and add their troops to his.

Yet against all these difficulties the military power of the Austrian
Government began to make determined headway. The Bohemians were crushed
by force of arms. In Italy the Austrian general-in-chief withdrew slowly
before his many foes, until his Government could reenforce him. Then he
turned on them, completely defeated the Sardinian King at Custozza and
the next year at Novara, and therby restored Austrian supremacy in
Northern Italy.

Meanwhile Rome, from which Pius IX had fled in horror, proclaimed itself
a republic. Mazzini, the earliest hero of Italian unity, and Garibaldi,
its greatest champion, were both members of the Government. The
Austrians marched against them; but French troops had also been
despatched to defend the Pope, and it was the French who, first reaching
Rome, stormed and captured it. The republic was overthrown by a
republic. [Footnote: See _Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic_.] Venice
was the last Italian city to hold out, and surrendered to the Austrians
only after a siege of many months had reduced it to starvation.

The Austrian revolution had also collapsed at home. In October, 1848,
Government troops stormed the city of Vienna as if it had been a foreign
capital, and defeated the students and citizens, who fought the soldiers
from street to street.

Only in Hungary were the royal armies baffled. There a regular
republican government was established under Louis Kossuth. Hungarian
armies were raised, and, defeating the Austrians in pitched battles,
drove them from the land. The Austrian Emperor in despair appealed to
Russia for aid; and the Czar having just trampled out an incipient
Polish rebellion of his own, came willingly to the aid of his brother
autocrat. Just as Austrian troops had so often done in Italy, so now a
huge Russian horde poured over Hungary, beat down all resistance, and
having reduced the land to helplessness returned it to the angry grip of
its insulted sovereign. [Footnote: See _The Revolt of Hungary_.]

Yet Hungary did not wholly fail of her revenge. She had brought about
the downfall of Austria as a great political Power. The once haughty
empire had been compelled to cry for help, to be protected, even as were
Italy and Spain, against her own people. Her weakness was made manifest
to the world. Never again could she pose as the leader of European
councils.

Thus it was only in France and Germany that the results of the upheaval
of 1848-1849 remained evident upon the surface. Prussia and the lesser
German States became and continued constitutional kingdoms. Germany was
united in a closer though still vague union, in which Austria and
Prussia struggled for a dominant influence. But democracy had in many
places committed such excesses that the huge body of the middle classes
feared it and turned against it. Such citizens as had property to
preserve concluded that, after all, their ancient kings had been less
tyrannic than King Mob.

In France, too, this reaction was strongly felt. The revolution of 1848
had not been accomplished without an outburst from socialism or
communism, which raised its red flag in the streets of Paris and was put
down only after days of bloody battle with the more moderate elements.
So the French middle classes wanted peace, and they elected as president
of the republic Louis Napoleon, nephew of their once famous Emperor. In
1851 the President by a sudden _coup d'etat_ overturned his own
Government. He declared the land an empire under himself as Napoleon
III. Enthusiastic patriots protested in burning words, but most of
France appeared content. Property-owners welcomed the return of any
government that was strong enough to govern. [Footnote: See _The Coup
d'Etat_.]

Despite temporary setbacks, however, the advance of the power of the
people in 1848 had been enormous. The dullest tyrant could hardly
believe longer in the permanence of personal despotism. Even England,
the stronghold of conservatism as well as of personal independence, was
shifting her aristocratic institutions slowly toward democracy.

The Reform Bill of 1832 had been only a small step in the direction of
popular government; but it opened the way for further reform. Almost
immediately upon its granting, began what was known as the Chartist
movement, an agitation kept up among the lower classes for a "charter"
or more liberal constitution. This soon became associated with a demand
for freer trade. The importation into England of bread-stuffs,
especially corn, was heavily taxed, and thus the poorer classes were
driven almost to the point of famine. The failure of the potato crop did
at last produce actual and awful famine in Ireland. Her peasants still
speak of 1847 as "the black year" of death. [Footnote: See _Famine in
Ireland_.]

Hundreds of thousands of the poorer classes starved. Then began a stream
of emigration to America. Under pressure of such facts as these, the
English "Corn Laws" were repealed, and gradually Great Britain assumed
more and more positively the attitude of "free trade." [Footnote: See
_Repeal of the English Corn Laws_.]


EXPANSION OF EUROPEAN INFLUENCE

Yet despite all the internal difficulties that thus convulsed Europe in
the middle of the nineteenth century, the period is also notable for the
rapid expansion of European influence over the other continents of the
Eastern Hemisphere. "Earth-hunger," the same passion that had swayed the
United States in its Mexican contest, plunged the Powers of Europe also
into repeated war. France extended her authority over the nearer African
States of the Mediterranean. Indeed, one of the main causes for the
rebellion of 1848 against Louis Philippe was the enormous cost in men
and money of these African campaigns, undertaken against the truly
remarkable Mahometan leader and patriot Abd-el-Kader. [Footnote: See
_The Fall of Abd-el-Kader_.]

England tightened her grip on India, and extended her authority over the
broader lands around it. The hopelessness of Asiatic resistance to
European aggressiveness and military force was once more made evident in
the widespread rebellion of the Indian natives in 1857. In quick
succession, over vast and populous regions, both the people and the
rajas rose against British rule. In the triumph of their first momentary
victories they committed savage excesses which made pardon hopeless. Yet
neither their numbers nor the desperation to which they were driven
enabled them to hold their own against the mere handfuls of resolute
Englishmen, who soon subdued them. [Footnote: See _The Indian Mutiny_.]

England's influence was also extended over Afghanistan and Southern
Africa. Livingstone, most famous of missionaries and explorers, crossed
the "dark continent" from coast to coast in 1851. [Footnote: See
_Livingstone's African Discoveries_.] In that same year gold was
discovered in Australia, and English adventurers flocked thither. The
world grew small to European eyes. [Footnote: See _Discovery of Gold in
Australia_.]

Even the extremest East was brought in contact with the West. As a
result of the Opium War of 1840, China was compelled to open her doors
to foreign trade. She was also compelled to surrender territory to
England. Japan, which for more than two centuries had jealously excluded
Europeans from her shores, received her memorable awakening from the
friendly American expedition of Commodore Perry. [Footnote: See _The
Opening of Japan_.]


THE CRIMEAN WAR

Russia sought to have her share also in the appropriation of territory
and "spheres of influence." She and England were the only two European
Powers which had not been seriously shaken by the upheavals of 1848. It
seemed that they might almost divide between them the helpless Eastern
world. England having already begun operations, Russia assumed a sort of
protectorate over the Christians in Turkish lands, and proposed to
England that the entire Turkish Empire should be divided between the two
despoilers. The British Government refused the plan, mainly because it
would give Russia a broad highway to the sea and make her a dangerous
commercial rival. So Russia attempted to carry out her scheme
single-handed, and began seizing Turkish provinces. She destroyed the
Turkish fleet. Once before in 1828 the threat of a general European
alliance had checked the Russian bear at this same game; but Europe was
weaker now, the Czar stronger, and England far off and undecided.

Thus perhaps the Czar might have had his way but for Napoleon III. This
new Emperor had been permitted by Frenchmen to usurp his power largely
because of the military repute of his great namesake; and he felt that
to hold his place he must justify his reputation. Frenchmen resented
exceedingly the Czar's haughty assumption that only England was able to
oppose Russia; and Napoleon III promptly asserted himself in the _role_
of the former Napoleon as "dictator of Europe." The title so pleased the
insulted pride of his people that they followed him eagerly, and
remained blind to many failings through more wars than one. The
self-constituted dictator insisted that his whole desire was for peace
and the artistic beautifying of his country; yet if Russia persisted in
extending her power and ignoring France--. In 1854 he joined England in
the war of the Crimea against Russia.

It cannot be said that the allies achieved any great success against
their huge antagonist. Their fleets bombarded the Baltic fortresses with
small result. Their armies, hastening to protect Turkey, attacked the
Russians in the Crimea, gained the Battle of the Alma, and then for an
entire year besieged the fortifications of Sebastopol. [Footnote: See
_The Capture of Sebastopol_.] But distance and changeful climate proved
Russia's aids as they had in 1812. The allies' commissary and sanitary
departments could hardly be managed at all; their troops died by
thousands, and, though they finally stormed and captured Sebastopol, it
was a barren victory. Russia, not so much overcome as convinced of the
practical lack of profit in persistency, made terms of peace by which
she once more drew back from her feeble prey. English statesmen were
satisfied with the check administered to their great rival; and the
French were delighted at the successful interference of their "dictator
of Europe." He had rehabilitated the nation in its own eyes.


UNION OF ITALY

Ambition grows by what it feeds on. Napoleon determined to assert
himself again. The bitterness of Italy against its Austrian masters
offered an excellent opportunity, and in 1859 he encouraged the King of
Sardinia to try once more the contest which had proved so disastrous
eleven years before. The King, Victor Emmanuel II, prepared for war
against Austria. The French joined him, so did the little North Italian
States, and their combined forces were victorious at Magenta and
Solferino. [Footnote: See _Battles of Magenta and Solferino_.]

Napoleon had declared that the combat should not cease until the
Austrians were driven entirely out of Italy. As the price of his
alliance he secured Nice and Savoy from Sardinia; and then, immediately
after the bloody Battle of Solferino he suddenly changed front and
declared that the war must cease. Austria yielded Lombardy, but kept
Venice, the last of the possessions for which during more than three
hundred years she had been battling in Italy. The Kingdom of Sardinia
became the Kingdom of Northern Italy.

The next year (1860) Garibaldi, the lion-like fighter, the enthusiastic
lover of Italy, gathering round him a thousand followers, made an
unexpected attack on Sicily, which was held by the tyrant King of
Naples. With his celebrated "Thousand" he won two remarkable victories.
The Sicilians joined him; the Neapolitans were driven from the island.
Not giving them time to recover, Garibaldi followed to the mainland,
defeated them again, and was master of all Southern Italy. Meanwhile
Victor Emmanuel, marching his troops southward, seized what was left of
the States of the Church. The two conquerors met midway in Italy, and
Garibaldi, grasping his sovereign by the hand, saluted him as King at
last of a united Italy. Only Rome and Venice remained outside the pale,
Rome protected by being in actual possession of the Pope, and, since
France was still Catholic, guarded by French troops from the eager
Italians. The year 1860 had been second only to 1848 in its importance
in changing the outlines of modern Europe. [Footnote: See _The Kingdom
of Italy Established_.]

Another change, immeasurably vast and still unmeasured in its
consequences, may be dated from 1859, when Charles Darwin gave to the
world his book, the _Origin of Species_. In this he proclaimed the
doctrine of the evolution of all the more complicated forms of life from
simpler forms. The idea, at first resolutely combated on religious
grounds, has gradually received more or less acceptance into the entire
religious fabric, even as were the discoveries of Galileo. [Footnote:
See _Darwin Publishes His Origin of Species_.]


DISUNION IN AMERICA

Yet each and all of these events, important as they were, grew little in
men's minds as the year 1860 drew to its close and revealed in America
the coming of a mightier quarrel. The slavery question, once supposed to
have been settled by the Missouri Compromise, had proved itself
incapable of such settlement. The forward march of democracy had in fact
made slavery an anachronism, outgrown and impossible. Even the Emperor
of Russia saw that, and in 1861 liberated all the serfs within his
territories. [Footnote: See _Emancipation of Russian Serfs_.] In the
United States alone among the great Powers of the world, did slavery
persist.

In 1854 a new political party, calling itself the Republican, was
formed, having for its main principle opposition to the extension of
slavery into the Territories. [Footnote: See _The Rise of the Republican
Party_.] Other issues might and did complicate the central question, but
it was the slavery issue that inflamed men's minds, made Kansas a
"battle-ground" between settlers from North and South, and sent John
Brown upon his reckless raid. Watching the increasing success of the
Republicans, Southern leaders began to reassert the doctrine of the
right of secession. They said openly that if a Republican president were
elected they would leave the Union.

And in 1860 a Republican president was elected. Was the long-predicted,
and to most of Europe eagerly desired, disruption of the United States
at hand? Was the break to be accomplished peacefully or in flame and
wrath? The fading year of 1860 left the advancing world of democracy in
panic over the danger to what had been its most successful stronghold.


[For the next section of this general survey, see volume XVIII.]




(1844) INVENTION OF THE TELEGRAPH, Alonzo B. Cornell


After the experiments of Franklin that did so much to advance the study
of electrical phenomena, and to suggest practical applications of
electricity, physicists in all countries occupied themselves with
investigations along lines marked out by the American philosopher. In
1749 Franklin devised the lightning-rod. But notwithstanding the labors
of many investigators, it was more than fifty years before any other
practical discovery or invention in electricity was brought into general
use. The first great achievement of the kind was Morse's improvement of
the electric telegraph. That Morse's fellow-countryman, Joseph Henry,
chiefly prepared the way for that triumph, the following account, with
just emphasis, demonstrates.

Among the European scientists and inventors to whom both Henry and Morse
were indebted was the French electrician, Andre Marie Ampere
(1775-1836), whose name (ampere) has been given to the practical unit of
electric-current strength. Ampere was the first and is the most famous
investigator in electrodynamics. He also invented a telegraphic
arrangement in which he used the magnetic needle and coil and the
galvanic battery. Others, in the latter part of the eighteenth century
and the earlier years of the nineteenth, devised similar arrangements.
But no strictly electromagnetic apparatus for telegraphic signalling was
put to successful use until 1836, when, in England, Charles Wheatstone,
who is commonly regarded as the first inventor of practical electric
telegraphy, constructed an apparatus whereby thirty signals were
transmitted through nearly four miles of wire. From 1837 to 1843 he had
as an associate William Fothergill Cooke, and the two worked together to
develop the electric telegraph. They afterward quarrelled over their
respective claims to credit, but in 1838-1841 telegraph lines secured by
their patents were set up on the Great Western and two other English
railways.

Meanwhile other inventors were still working for the same results, in
many parts of the world, and it has been significantly said that "the
electric telegraph had, properly speaking, no inventor; it grew up
little by little." Nevertheless with respect to the distinctive
character of Morse's improvements, and his title to a peculiar place
among those through whose labors the electric telegraph "grew," there
can be no question.

Alonzo B. Cornell, son of the founder of Cornell University, at one time
Governor of New York, was intimately connected with electrical and
telegraphic affairs for many years; therefore on the subject here
presented he speaks with professional authority. His father was the
first builder of the Morse telegraphs.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the early years of the nineteenth century but slight advance was
made in the development of electrical science, although there were many
persons both here and abroad engaged in experimental work, and there was
considerable increase of literature bearing upon the subject. It was
reserved for another illustrious American to accomplish the next
important and decisive step in the pathway of progress. In 1828 Joseph
Henry, then professor of physics at the Albany Academy, afterward a
professor at Princeton, and subsequently for many years secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution at Washington, made the highly important
discovery that by winding a plain iron core with many layers of
insulated wire, through which the electric current was passed, he could
at pleasure charge and discharge the iron core with magnetic power. Thus
Henry produced the electromagnet which was the beginning of the mastery
by man of the subtle fluid. He also discovered that the intensity and
power of the electric current were materially augmented by increasing
the number of the series of battery plates without increasing the
quantity of metal used in their construction.

These discoveries of Henry were, beyond all question, the most important
in real and intrinsic value ever made in the progress of electric
science, as they form the solid basis upon which all subsequent
inventors have been enabled to accomplish successful results in their
various fields of endeavor. It is conceded by all familiar with the
history of electrical progress that the name of Professor Joseph Henry
is to be honored and cherished as one of the very foremost of scientific
discoverers of any age or country, and it must remain a cause of sincere
and permanent regret that of all the fabulous wealth that has resulted
from the advancement of electrical science, this modest and unselfish
inventor should have passed hence without ever having realized any
substantial reward for his great work. Not only so, but he was never
awarded the appropriate acknowledgment to which he was so eminently
entitled for the inestimable benefits his discoveries conferred upon his
countrymen and upon the world at large.

The possibility of utilizing Professor Henry's electromagnet for the
purpose of transmitting intelligence to a distant point was conceived by
still another American, Professor Samuel Finley Breese Morse, of New
York, [Footnote: He was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, April 27,
1791.--ED.] during his passage on board the packet-ship Sully, from
Havre to New York, in the winter of 1832. Incidental discussions between
himself and Doctor Jackson, a fellow-passenger, in reference to recent
electrical improvements on both sides of the Atlantic, led Morse to the
conclusion that intelligence might be instantaneously transmitted over a
metallic circuit to a distant point, and he thereupon determined to
devote himself to the solution of the problem involved. The following
day he exhibited a rough sketch of a plan for recording electric
impulses necessary to convey and express intelligence. He pursued the
subject with great devotion during the remainder of the voyage, and
after arrival in New York began the construction of the necessary
apparatus to accomplish his purpose.

Morse was by profession a portrait painter of more than ordinary merit,
and was obliged to continue his artistic labors for a livelihood. He was
a graduate of Yale College, where his attention had first been attracted
to electrical experiments. He was thus, in a measure, prepared for
carrying forward the important work he had undertaken, and pursued his
labors with great assiduity. Devoting every spare moment to the pursuit
of his object, which was attained but slowly by reason of his lack of
mechanical skill and ingenuity, not until 1837 had he so far succeeded
in his efforts as to be prepared to make application for letters-patent
to enable him to secure and protect his rights of invention in the
electromagnetic telegraph.

In explanation of the slow progress of his experimental work, Professor
Morse, in writing to a friend, said: "Up to the autumn of 1837 my
telegraphic apparatus existed in so rude a form that I felt reluctance
to have it seen. My means were very limited, so limited as to preclude
the possibility of constructing an apparatus of such mechanical finish
as to warrant my success in venturing upon its public exhibition. I had
no wish to expose to ridicule the representative of so many hours of
laborious thought. Prior to the summer of 1837 I depended upon my pencil
for subsistence. Indeed, so straitened were my circumstances that in
order to save time to carry out my invention and to economize my scanty
means I had for months lodged and eaten in my studio, procuring food in
small quantities from some grocery, and preparing it myself. To conceal
from my friends the stinted manner in which I lived, I was in the habit
of bringing food to my room in the evenings; and this was my mode of
life for many years."

After the continuance of this heroic struggle for more than five years,
Morse found himself compelled to seek the aid of more accomplished
mechanical skill than he possessed, to perfect his apparatus, and was
obliged to surrender a quarter interest in his invention in order to
obtain pecuniary aid for this purpose.

Having thus succeeded in obtaining, at such serious sacrifice, the
requisite financial assistance to enable him to perfect the mechanism
necessary to demonstrate his invention, Professor Morse lost no time in
completing his apparatus and presenting it for public inspection. On
January 6, 1838, he first operated his system successfully, over a wire
three miles long, in the presence of a number of personal friends, at
Morristown, New Jersey. In the following month he made a similar
exhibition before the faculty of the New York University, which was an
occasion of much interest among the scientists of the metropolis.

Shortly thereafter the apparatus was taken to Philadelphia and exhibited
at the Franklin Institute, where he received the highest commendation
from the committee of science and arts, with a strong expression in
favor of government aid for the purpose of demonstrating the practical
usefulness of the system.

From Philadelphia, Morse removed his apparatus to Washington, where he
was permitted to demonstrate its operation before President Van Buren
and his Cabinet. Foreign ministers and members of both Houses of
Congress, as well, also, as prominent citizens, were invited to attend
the exhibition, and manifested much interest in the novelty of the
invention. A bill was introduced in Congress making an appropriation of
thirty thousand dollars for the purpose of providing for the erection of
an experimental line of telegraph between Washington and Baltimore, to
illustrate, by practical use, its general utility. The bill was in good
time favorably reported from the committee on commerce, but made no
further progress in that Congress. Similar bills were subsequently
introduced and diligently supported in each succeeding Congress, but it
was not until the very closing hour of the expiring session of 1843 that
the necessary enactment was effected and the appropriation secured.

The plan of construction devised by Professor Morse for the experimental
line of telegraph to be erected between Washington and Baltimore, under
the Congressional appropriation, provided for placing insulated wires in
a lead pipe underground. This was to be accomplished by the use of a
specially devised plough of peculiar construction, to be drawn by a
powerful team, by which means the pipe containing the electric
conductors was to be automatically deposited in the earth. This
apparatus was entirely successful in operation, and the pipe was thus
buried to the complete satisfaction of all concerned, at a cost very
much lower than the work could have been accomplished in any other
manner. Two wires were to be used to form a complete metallic circuit,
for at that time it was not known, as was shortly afterward discovered,
that the earth could be used to form one-half of the circuit. For
purposes of insulation the wires were neatly covered with cotton-yarn
and then saturated in a bath of hot gum-shellac, but this treatment
proved defective in insulating properties, for when ten miles of line
had been completed the wires were found to be wholly useless for
electric conduction.

No mode had been devised for the treatment of india-rubber to make it
available for purposes of insulation, and gutta-percha was wholly
unknown as an article of use or commerce in this country. Twenty-three
thousand dollars of the Government appropriation had been expended, and
the work thus far accomplished was an acknowledged failure. Only seven
thousand dollars of the available fund remained unexpended, and this was
regarded as inadequate to complete the undertaking under any other plan.
The friends of the enterprise were in despair, and for some time saw no
other alternative than to apply to Congress for an additional
appropriation. This, however, was regarded as almost hopeless, and the
difficulty of the situation was extremely embarrassing.

An amusing incident was related of the means used to keep from public
knowledge the desperate situation. Professor Morse finally visited the
scene of activity where the pipe-laying was proceeding, and, calling the
superintendent aside, confided to him the fact that the work must be
stopped without the newspapers finding out the true reason of its
suspension. The quick-witted superintendent was equal to the occasion,
and, starting the ponderous machine, soon managed to run foul of a
protruding rock and break the plough. The newspapers published
sensational accounts of the accident and announced that it would require
several weeks to repair damages. Thus the real trouble was kept from the
public until new plans could be determined upon.

After long and careful consideration, Professor Morse very reluctantly
decided to erect the wires on poles. This plan was, at first, considered
wholly objectionable, under the apprehension that the structure would be
disturbed by evil-minded persons. It had, however, become manifest that
this was the only mode of construction that could be accomplished within
the remainder of the appropriation, and, finally, upon ascertaining that
pole lines had already been adopted in England, it was determined to
proceed in this manner. The line was thus completed between Washington
and Baltimore about May 1, 1844, and proved to be successful and in
every way satisfactory in its operation.

Shortly after the completion of the line the National Democratic
Convention, which nominated Polk and Dallas for President and
Vice-President, assembled in Baltimore [May, 1844]. Reports of the
convention proceedings were promptly telegraphed to the capital city,
where the telegraph office was thronged with Members of Congress
interested in the news. These reports created an immense sensation in
Washington and speedily removed all doubts as to the practical success
of the new system of communication. A despatch from the Honorable Silas
Wright, then United States Senator from New York, refusing to accept the
nomination for Vice-President, was read in the National Convention and
produced an extraordinary interest from the fact that very few of the
delegates had ever heard of the telegraph, and it required much
explanation to satisfy them of the genuineness of the alleged
communication.

Having thus established beyond all reasonable question the practical
utility of the telegraph as a superior means of public and private
communication, Professor Morse and his associates offered their patents
to the United States Government for the very moderate price of one
hundred thousand dollars, with a view of having the system adopted for
general use in connection with the postal establishment. This
proposition was referred to the Postmaster-General for consideration and
report. After due deliberation that officer reported that "Although the
invention is an agent vastly superior to any other ever devised by the
genius of man, yet the operation between Washington and Baltimore has
not satisfied me that, under any rate of postage that can be adopted,
its revenues can be made to cover its expenditures." Under the influence
of this report Congress very naturally declined the offer of the
patentees, and the telegraph was thereupon relegated to the domain of
private enterprise. The result was that the patentees finally realized
for their interests many times the amount of their offer to the
Government.

During the autumn of 1844 short exhibition lines were erected in Boston
and New York, for the purpose of familiarizing business men of those
cities with the characteristics of the new invention, but they attracted
little attention and the promoters had much cause of discouragement on
account of public indifference. For the purpose of arousing more
attention to the system, appeals were made to the public press for
favorable notice, which were also generally declined. The proprietor of
one of the most prominent and enterprising of the New York daily papers
distinctly refused to encourage the establishment of telegraph lines,
for the reason, as he freely acknowledged, that if the new method of
transmitting intelligence were to come into general use his competitors
could use it as well as himself, and he would therefore be deprived of
his present advantage over them for procuring early news by the use of
an expensive system of special despatch then maintained by his paper.
Two years later he refused to join other papers in receiving the
Governor's message by telegraph from Albany, and was so badly beaten by
his rivals in this instance that his paper was thenceforward one of the
most generous patrons of the telegraph.

Early in the year 1845 a corporate organization was effected for the
extension of the telegraph from Baltimore to Philadelphia and New York,
under the name of the Magnetic Telegraph Company, for which a special
act of incorporation was obtained from the Legislature of the State of
Maryland. Nearly all of the capital of this company was subscribed by
Washington people. Baltimore and Philadelphia furnished only a few
hundred dollars, while New York contributed nothing. Slow progress was
made toward the construction of the line on account of the difficulty of
obtaining the right of way either upon railways or highways, and it was
not until January, 1846, that the line was completed to the west side of
the Hudson River, which formed an impassable barrier to further progress
for a considerable period.

No method of insulation had yet been devised that would permit the
operation of an electric conductor under water, and it was doubted
whether a wire could be maintained for a span sufficient to cross the
river overhead. Finally however high masts were erected on the Palisades
near Fort Lee, and on the heights at Fort Washington on the New York
side, and a steel wire was suspended upon them. This plan was
successful, except that occasionally the wire was broken by an
extraordinary burden of sleet in the winter season. This method of
crossing the lower Hudson was continued for more than ten years, when it
was superseded by submarine cables.

During the year 1846 incorporated companies were formed, under which
telegraph lines were extended from New York to Boston, Buffalo, and
Pittsburg, and within the next three years nearly every important town
in the United States and Canada, from St. Louis and New Orleans to
Montreal and Halifax, was brought into telegraphic communication. Thus,
after fifteen years of struggle with all the pains of poverty, often
lacking even the common necessaries of life, Professor Morse and his
faithful colaborers had the supreme satisfaction, in 1847, of knowing
and realizing that the telegraph system had finally achieved, not only
scientific success, for this had been proven years before, but that
financial success, ample and complete, had come to pay them richly for
all the dark days and wearisome years through which they had passed.

Once generally established, the telegraph won its way to popular
appreciation very rapidly. It was in harmony with the spirit of the age,
and it was not long before every town of any considerable importance
regarded telegraphic facilities as an indispensable necessity. The small
cost soon induced the construction of rival lines, regardless of the
rights of the patentees, and within a very few years unwise competition
began to bring many lines to a condition of bankruptcy. The weaker
concerns soon passed through the sheriff's hands and found purchasers
only at an extreme sacrifice, at the bidding of the more provident and
conservative proprietors of competing lines. Instead of inducing a more
prudent course, these disastrous results only served to feed the spirit
of rivalry, and general insolvency seemed to threaten the permanent
prosperity of the telegraph business, in consequence of the wild and
reckless competition which appeared to be inherent in its nature.

This extremely unsatisfactory condition of telegraph rivalry drifted on
from bad to worse until 1854, when, from dire necessity of
self-preservation, a few of the more prudent and far-sighted proprietors
of telegraph property were induced to combine their interests with some
of their competitors and thus avoid the ruinous policy which had been so
rapidly exhausting their vitality. Accordingly the principal telegraph
lines in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and some of the neighboring States
were brought into fraternal relations and formed the nucleus of the
Western Union Telegraph Company.

The new policy soon brought prosperity in place of waste and
improvidence. Profits were devoted to the purchase of additional lines,
thus enlarging their domain and strengthening their position. Prosperity
increased with rapid strides; and the beneficial effects of extirpating
wasteful rivalry and building up a substantial system with superior
facilities and provident management gave the new organization a
dominating influence among the telegraph companies of America. The same
general policy has been pursued to the present time [1894], and has
resulted in the establishment of a prosperous corporation of magnificent
proportions, carrying on a useful and beneficent business under a
greater number of governmental jurisdictions, great and small, than any
other corporate organization in existence.

For the development of the telegraph enterprise in America no thanks are
due to the wealthy capitalists. As a rule they would not listen to
suggestions of investing their money in what was contemptuously termed
rotten poles and rusty wires. They wanted something more substantial and
conservative as the basis of their investments. An early pioneer and
builder of telegraph lines, whose name is now held in grateful memory
for deeds of philanthropic beneficence visited the city of Chicago in
1847 to solicit subscriptions to the capital stock of a company then
engaged in construction of the first line of telegraph between that
place and the city of Buffalo. He presented a carefully prepared
prospectus showing an estimated earning capacity of the projected line
of one hundred dollars per day. The merits of the contemplated
enterprise were freely canvassed at a meeting of bankers, at which one
of the most prominent declared that any man who ever expected to see one
hundred dollars per day paid for telegraphing west of Buffalo must be
crazy and unworthy of belief. This oracular declaration prevailed, and
the project was ignominiously rejected by the wise men of Chicago.
Fortunately, citizens of smaller towns, like Ypsilanti, Kalamazoo, South
Bend, Kenosha, and Racine, took a more sensible view of the proposed
enterprise, and the line was built despite the contempt of Chicago
capitalists. Now, however, the men of Chicago pay more than five
thousand dollars a day for telegraphing at rates far lower than would
have been thought possible in that early day.

The true spirit of enterprise, which has so grandly developed the
resources of our imperial domain, has generally been found to prevail
among people of modest means. Thus, nearly every dollar of capital
contributed toward the establishment of telegraph lines in this country
came from the offerings of people in very moderate circumstances. In
this connection, therefore, it is extremely gratifying to state that
very few enterprises of any kind have returned such generous recompense
for the amount of capital invested as the telegraph and telephone lines
in America. Considering the apparently temporary and short-lived
character of the structures erected for these purposes, it seems
difficult to comprehend the truth of this statement.

The method of telegraphic communication devised by Professor Morse has
been continued in general use in this country, but instead of requiring
separate wire for each circuit as formerly, six independent circuits are
now operated simultaneously over a single wire by the use of the
sextuplex apparatus.




(1846) REPEAL OF THE ENGLISH CORN LAWS, Justin McCarthy


After the repeal of the corn laws the tariff legislation of Great
Britain was guided by a new policy, that of free trade, and it has been
followed ever since. The reactionary tendencies of Continental Europe
after the fall of Napoleon reached also to England, where they
controlled the conduct of political affairs until Canning, in 1822,
became Secretary for Foreign Affairs. His policy was liberal and did
much in forming the public opinion that at length found voice in
Catholic emancipation (1829), in the Reform Bill (1832), and in the
abolition of slavery in the English colonies (1833). Then followed
important amendments of the poor-laws, extension of local governmental
powers in the towns, improvement of popular education, and other
reforms.

Through all this gradual progress in liberal government and public
amelioration, the need of another reform had been pointed out by some
thinkers and statesmen, and at last the condition of the country favored
the views of its advocates. The corn laws protected the English
producers by imposing heavy duties on imported grain. At one time these
duties practically prohibited such importation. McCarthy shows how the
laws operated upon the people, and his story of the memorable agitation
for their repeal and of the accomplishment of that object could not have
been better told.

In 1815 the celebrated Corn Law was passed, which was itself moulded on
the Corn Law of 1670. By the Act of 1815 wheat might be exported upon a
payment of one shilling per quarter customs duty, but the importation of
foreign grain was practically prohibited until the price of wheat in
England had reached eighty shillings a quarter, that is to say, until a
certain price had been secured for the grower of grain at the expense of
all the consumers in this country. It was not permitted to Englishmen to
obtain their supplies from any foreign land, unless on conditions that
suited the English corn-grower's pocket.

We may perhaps make this principle a little more clear, if it be
necessary, by illustrating its working on a small scale and within
narrow limits. In a particular street in London, let us say, a law is
passed declaring that no one must buy a loaf of bread out of that
street, or even round the corner, until the price of bread has risen so
high in the street itself as to secure to its two or three bakers a
certain enormous scale of profit on their loaves. When the price of
bread has been forced up so high as to pass this scale of profit, then
it would be permissible for those who stood in need of bread to go round
the corner and buy their loaves of the baker in the next street; but the
moment that their continuing to do this caused the price of the baker's
bread in their own street to fall below the prescribed limit, they must
instantly take to buying bread within their own bounds and of their own
bakers again. This is a fair illustration of the principle on which the
corn laws were moulded. The Corn Law of 1815 was passed in order to
enable the landowners and farmers to recover from the depression caused
by the long era of foreign war. It was "rushed through" Parliament, if
we may use an American expression; petitions of the most urgent nature
poured in against it from all the commercial and manufacturing classes,
and in vain. Popular disturbances broke out in many places. The poor
everywhere saw the bread of their family threatened, saw the food of
their children almost taken out of their mouths, and they naturally
broke into wild extremes of anger. In London there were serious riots,
and the houses of some of the most prominent supporters of the bill were
attacked. The incendiary went to work in many parts of the country. At
that time it was still the way in England, as it is now in Russia and
other countries, for popular indignation to express itself in the
frequent incendiary fire. At one place near London a riot lasted for two
days and nights; the soldiers had to be called out to put it down, and
five men were hanged for taking part in it.

After the passing of the Corn Law of 1815, and when it had worked for
some time, there were sliding-scale acts introduced, which established a
varying system of duty, so that when the price of home-grown grain rose
above a certain figure, the duty on imported wheat was to sink in
proportion. The principle of all these measures was the same. How, it
may be asked, could any sane legislator adopt such measures? As well
might it be asked, How can any civilized nation still, as some still do,
believe in such a principle? The truth is that the principle is one
which has a strong fascination for most persons, the charm of which it
is difficult for any class in its turn wholly to shake off. The idea is
that if our typical baker be paid more than the market price for a loaf,
he will be able in turn to pay more to the butcher than the fair price
for his beef; the butcher thus benefited will be enabled to deal on more
liberal terms with the tailor; the tailor so favored by legislation will
be able in his turn to order a better kind of beer from the publican and
pay a higher price for it. Thus, by some extraordinary process,
everybody pays too much for everything, and nevertheless all are
enriched in turn. The absurdity of this is easily kept out of sight
where the protective duties affect a number of varying and complicated
interests, manufacturing, commercial, and productive.

In the United States, for example, where the manufacturers are benefited
in one place and the producers are benefited in another, and where the
country always produces food abundant to supply its own wants, men are
not brought so directly face to face with the fallacy of the principle
as they were in England at the time of the Anti-Corn Law League. In
America "protection" affects manufacturers for the most part, and there
is no such popular craving for cheap manufactures as to bring the
protective principle into collision with the daily wants of the people.
But in England, during the reign of the Corn Law, the food which the
people put into their mouths was the article mainly taxed, and made
cruelly costly by the working of protection.

Nevertheless, the country put up with this system down to the close of
the year 1836. At that time there was a stagnation of trade and a
general depression of business. Severe poverty prevailed in many
districts. Inevitably, therefore, the question arose in the minds of
most men, in distressed or depressed places, whether it could be a good
thing for the country in general to have the price of bread kept high by
factitious means when wages had sunk and work become scarce. An
Anti-Corn-Law association was formed in London, It began pretentiously
enough, but it brought about no result. London is not a place where
popular agitation finds a fitting centre. In 1838, however, Bolton, in
Lancashire, suffered from a serious commercial crisis. Three-fifths of
its manufacturing activity became paralyzed at once. Many houses of
business were actually closed and abandoned, and thousands of workmen
were left without the means of life. Lancashire suddenly roused itself
into the resolve to agitate against the corn laws, and Manchester became
the headquarters of the movement which afterward accomplished so much.

The Anti-Corn-Law League was formed, and a Free-Trade Hall was built in
Manchester on the scene of that disturbance which was called the
"massacre of Peterloo." The leaders of the Anti-Corn-Law movement were
Richard Cobden, John Bright, and Charles Villiers. Cobden was not a
Manchester man. He was the son of a Sussex farmer. After the death of
his father he was taken by his uncle and employed in his wholesale
warehouse in the city of London. He afterward became a partner in a
Manchester cotton-factory, and sometimes travelled on the commercial
business of the establishment. He became what would then have been
considered a great traveller, distinct, of course, from the class of
explorers; that is, he made himself thoroughly familiar with most or all
of the countries of Europe, with various parts of the East, and with the
United States and Canada. He had had a fair, homely education, and he
improved it wherever he went by experience, by observation, and by
conversation with all manner of men. He became one of the most effective
and persuasive popular speakers ever known in English agitation. He was
not an orator in the highest sense. He had no imagination and little
poetic feeling, nor did genuine passion ever inflame into fervor of
declamation his quiet, argumentative style. But he had humor; he spoke
simple, clear, strong English; he used no unnecessary words. He always
made his meaning plain and intelligible, and he had an admirable faculty
for illustrating every argument by something drawn from reading or from
observation or from experience. He was, in fact, the very perfection of
a common-sense talker, a man fit to deal with men by fair,
straightforward argument, to expose complicated sophistries, and to make
clear the most perplexed parts of an intricate question. He was exactly
the man for that time, for that question, and for the persuasive and
argumentative part of the great controversy which he had undertaken.

Cobden's chief companion in the struggle was John Bright, whose name has
been completely identified with that of Cobden in the repeal of the Corn
Laws. Bright was an orator of the highest order. He had all the
qualifications that make a master of eloquence. His presence was
commanding; his voice was singularly strong and clear, and had peculiar
tones and shades in it which gave indescribable meaning to passages of
anger, of pity, or of contempt. His manner was quiet, composed, serene.
He indulged in little or no gesticulation, he had a rich gift of genuine
Saxon humor. These two men, one belonging to the middle class of the
North, one sprung from the yeomanry of Southern England, had as a
colleague Charles Villiers, a man of high aristocratic family, of marked
ability, and of indomitable loyalty to any cause he undertook. Villiers
for some years represented the free-trade cause in Parliament, and
Bright and Cobden did its work on the platform. Cobden first, and Bright
after him, became members of the House of Commons, and they were further
assisted there by Milner Gibson, a man of position and family, an
effective debater, who had been at first a Conservative, but who passed
over to the ranks of the Free Traders, and through them to the ranks of
the Liberals or Radicals.

Every year Villiers brought on a motion in the House in favor of free
trade. For a long time this motion was only one of the annual
performances which, by an apparently inevitable necessity, have to
prelude for many years the practical movement of any great parliamentary
question. Villiers might have brought on his annual motion all his life,
without getting much nearer to his object, if Manchester, Birmingham,
Sheffield, Leeds, and other great northern towns had not taken the
matter vigorously in hand; if Cobden and Bright had not stirred up the
energies of the whole country, and brought clearly home to the mind of
every man the plain fact that reason, argument, and arithmetic, as well
as freedom and justice, were distinctly on their side.

The Anti-Corn-Law League showered pamphlets, tracts, letters,
newspapers, all over the country. They sent lecturers into every town,
preaching the same doctrine, and proving by scientific facts the justice
of the cause they advocated. These lecturers were enjoined to avoid as
much as possible any appeals to sentiment or to passion. The cause they
had in hand was one which could best be served by the clear statement of
rigorous facts, by the simple explanation of economical truths which no
sophism could darken, and which no opposing eloquence could charm away.
The Melbourne Ministry fell in 1841. It died of inanition: its force was
spent. Sir Robert Peel came into office. Cobden, who then entered the
House of Commons for the first time, seemed to have good hope that even
Peel, strong Conservative though he was, might prove to be a man from
whom the Free Traders could expect substantial assistance. Sir Robert
Peel had, in fact, in those later years expressed again and again his
conviction as to the general truth of the principles of free trade. "All
agree," he said in 1842, "in the general rule that we should buy in the
cheapest and sell in the dearest market." But he contended that while
such was the general rule, yet various economical and social conditions
made it necessary that there should be some distinct exceptions, and he
regarded the corn laws and sugar duties as such exceptions. It may be
mentioned, perhaps, that the corn laws had, in fact, been treated as a
necessary exception by many of the leading exponents of the principles
of free trade. Thus we have to notice the curious fact that while Sir
Robert Peel's own party looked upon his accession to power as a certain
guarantee against any concession to the Free Traders, the Free Traders
themselves were, for the most part, convinced that their cause had
better hope from him than from a Whig Ministry.

The Free Traders went on debating and dividing in the House, agitating
and lecturing all over the country, for some years without any marked
Parliamentary success following their endeavors. An immense and
overwhelming majority always voted against them in the House of Commons.
They were making progress, and very great progress, but it was not that
kind of advance which had yet come to be decided by a Parliamentary
vote. Probably a keen and experienced eye might have noted clearly
enough the progress they were making. The Whig party were coming more
and more round to the principles of free trade. Day after day some Whig
leader was admitting that the theories of the past would not do for the
present, and, as we have said, the Tory leader had himself gone so far
as to admit the justice of the general principles of free trade. At one
point the main difference between Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the
House of Commons, and Lord John Russell, the leader of the opposition,
seems to have been nothing more than this, that Peel still regarded
grain as a necessary exception to the principle of free trade, and Lord
John Russell was not clear that the time had come when it could be
treated otherwise than as an exception.

An event, however, over which no parties and no leaders had any control,
suddenly intervened to hasten the action and spur the convictions of the
leaders on both sides, and especially of the Prime Minister. This was
the great famine which broke out in Ireland in the autumn of 1845. The
vast majority of the Irish people had long depended for their food on
the potato alone. The summer of 1845 had been a long season of wet and
cold and sunlessness. In the autumn the news went abroad that the whole
potato crop of Ireland was in danger of destruction, if not already
actually destroyed. Before attention had well been awakened to the
crisis, it was officially announced that more than one-third of the
entire potato crop had been swept away by the disease, and that it had
not ceased its ravages, but, on the contrary, was spreading more and
more every day.

The general impression of those who could form an opinion was that the
whole of the crop must perish. The Anti-Corn-Law League cried out for
the opening of the ports and the admission of grain and food from all
places. Sir Robert Peel was decidedly in favor of such a course. The
Duke of Wellington and Lord Stanley opposed the idea, and the
proposition was given up. Only three members of the Cabinet supported
Sir Robert Peel's proposals--Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney
Herbert. All the others objected, some because they opposed the
principle of the measure, and were convinced that if the ports were once
opened they would never be closed again, which indeed was probably
Peel's own conviction; and others on the ground that no sufficient proof
had yet been given that such a measure was necessary. Lord John Russell,
almost immediately after, wrote a letter from Edinburgh to his
constituents, the electors of the city of London, in which he declared
that something must immediately be done, that it was "no longer worth
while to contend for a fixed duty," and that an end must be put to the
whole system of protection, as "the blight of commerce, the bane of
agriculture, the source of bitter division among classes, the cause of
penury, fever, and crime among the people." This letter produced a
decisive effect on Peel. He saw that the Whigs were prepared to unite
with the Anti-Corn-Law League in agitating for the total repeal of the
corn laws, and he therefore made up his mind to recommend to the Cabinet
an early meeting of Parliament, with the view to anticipate the
agitation which he saw must succeed in the end, and to bring forward, as
a Government measure, some scheme which should at least prepare the way
for the speedy repeal of the corn laws.

A Cabinet council was held almost immediately after the publication of
Lord John Russell's letter, and Peel recommended the summoning of
Parliament in order to take instant measures to cope with the distress
in Ireland, and also to introduce legislation distinctly intended to
prepare the way for the repeal of the corn laws. Lord Stanley could not
accept the proposition. The Duke of Wellington was himself of opinion
that the corn laws ought to be maintained, but at the same time he
declared that he considered good government for the country more
important than corn laws or any other considerations, and that he was
therefore ready to support Sir Robert Peel's Administration through
thick and thin. Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleuch, however,
declared that they could not be parties to any legislation which tended
toward the repeal of the corn-laws. Sir Robert Peel did not feel himself
strong enough to carry out his project in the face of such opposition in
the Cabinet itself, and he tendered his resignation to the Queen. The
Queen sent for Lord John Russell, but Russell's party were not very
strong in the country and they had not a majority in the House of
Commons. Lord John tried, however, to form a ministry without a
Parliamentary majority, and even although Sir Robert Peel would not give
any pledge to support a measure for the immediate and complete repeal of
the corn laws, Lord John Russell was not successful.

Lord Grey, son of the Lord Grey of the Reform Bill, objected to the
foreign policy of Lord Palmerston, and thought a seat in the Cabinet
ought to be offered to Cobden. Lord John Russell had nothing to do but
to announce to the Queen that he found it impossible to form a ministry.
The Queen sent for Sir Robert Peel again and asked him to withdraw his
resignation. Peel complied, and almost immediately resumed the functions
of First Minister of the Crown. The Duke of Buccleuch consented to go on
with him, but Lord Stanley held to his resolution and had no place in
the Ministry. His position as Secretary of State for the Colonies was
taken by William E. Gladstone. Gladstone, however, did not sit in
Parliament during the eventful session when the corn laws were repealed.
He had sat for the borough of Newark, which was under the influence of
the Duke of Newcastle; and as the Duke of Newcastle had withdrawn his
support from the Ministry, Gladstone did not seek re-election for
Newark, and remained without a seat in the House of Commons for some
months.

Parliament met on January 22, 1846. The "speech from the throne,"
delivered by the Queen in person, recommended the legislature to take
into consideration the necessity of still further applying the principle
on which it had formerly acted, when measures were presented "to extend
commerce and to stimulate domestic skill and industry, by the repeal of
prohibitive and the relaxation of protective duties." In the debate on
the "address" Sir Robert Peel rose, after the mover and seconder had
spoken and the question had been put from the Chair, and at once
proceeded to explain the policy which he intended to adopt. His speech
was long and labored, and somewhat wearied the audience by the elaborate
manner in which he explained how his opinions had been brought into
gradual change with regard to free trade and protection. He made it,
however, perfectly clear that he was now a convert to Cobden's opinions,
and that he intended to introduce some measure which should practically
amount to the abolition of protection.

It was in this debate, and immediately after Peel had spoken, that
Benjamin Disraeli made his first great impression on Parliament. He had
been in the House for many years, and had made many attempts, had
sometimes been laughed at, had sometimes been disliked, and occasionally
for a moment admired. But it was when he rose immediately after Sir
Robert Peel, and denounced Peel as one who had betrayed his party and
his principles, that he made the first deep impression on the House of
Commons, and came to be considered as a serious and influential
Parliamentary personage. "I am not one of the converts," Disraeli said,
"I am perhaps a member of a fallen party." A new Protection party was
formed almost immediately under the leadership of George Lord Bentinck,
a man of great energy and tenacity of purpose, who had hitherto spent
his life almost altogether on the turf, who had had almost no previous
preparation for leadership or even for debate, but who certainly, when
he did accept the responsible position offered to him, showed a
considerable capacity for leadership and an unwearying attention to his
duties.

On January 27th Sir Robert Peel explained his financial policy. His
intention was to abandon the sliding scale altogether, to impose for the
present a duty of ten shillings a quarter on corn when the price of it
was under forty-eight shillings a quarter, to reduce that duty by one
shilling for every shilling of rise in price until it reached
fifty-three shillings a quarter, when the duty should fall to four
shillings. This, however, was to be only a temporary arrangement. It was
to last but three years, and at the end of that time protective duties
on grain were to be wholly abandoned. We need not go at any length into
the history of the long debates on Peel's propositions. The discussion
of one amendment, which was in substance a motion to reject the scheme
altogether, lasted for twelve nights. The third reading of the bill
passed the House of Commons on May 15th, by a majority of ninety-eight.

The bill went up at once to the House of Lords, and at the urgent
pressure of the Duke of Wellington was carried through that House
without any serious opposition. The Duke made no secret of his own
opinions. He assured many of his brother peers that he disliked the
measure just as much as anyone could do, but he insisted that they had
all better vote for it nevertheless. Sir Robert Peel had triumphed, but
he found himself deserted by a large and influential section of the
party he once had led. Most of the great landowners and country
gentlemen of the Conservative party abandoned him. Some of them felt the
bitterest resentment toward him. They believed he had betrayed them,
although nothing could be more clear than that for years he had
distinctly been making it known to the House that his principles
inclined him toward free trade, and thereby leaving it to be understood
that, if opportunity or emergency should compel him, he would be glad to
declare himself a Free Trader, even in the matter of grain.

Strange to say, the day when the bill was read in the House of Lords for
the third time saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was due to the
state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing in a coercion bill
for Ireland. It was introduced while the Corn Bill was yet passing
through the House of Commons. The situation was critical. All the Irish
followers of Daniel O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill.
The Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made it
their principle to oppose coercion bills if they were not attended with
some promises of legislative reform. The English Radical members, led by
Cobden and Bright, were certain to oppose coercion. If the
Protectionists should join with these other opponents of the Coercion
Bill the fate of the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the
Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty Protectionists
followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby against the bill, in
combination with the Free Traders, the Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and
national members. The division took place on the second reading of the
bill on Thursday, June 25th, and there was a majority of seventy-three
against the Ministry.

The moment after Sir Robert Peel succeeded in passing his great measure
of free trade he himself fell from power. His political epitaph,
perhaps, could not be better written than in the words with which he
closed the speech that just preceded his fall: "It may be that I shall
leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good-will in those
places which are the abode of men whose lot it is to labor and to earn
their daily bread by the sweat of their brow--a name remembered with
expressions of good-will when they shall recreate their exhausted
strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no
longer leavened with a sense of injustice."

With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may be said to
have practically fallen the principle of protection in that country
altogether. That principle was a little complicated in regard to the
sugar duties and to the navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West
Indian colonies was allowed to enter that country at rates of duty much
lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign lands. The
abolition of slavery in the colonies had made labor there somewhat
costly and difficult to obtain continuously, and the impression was that
if the duties on foreign sugar were reduced it would tend to enable
those countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
great advantage with the sugar grown in the colonies by that free labor
to establish which England had but just paid so large a pecuniary fine.
Therefore the question of free trade became involved with that of free
labor; at least, so it seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not
inclined to support the protective principle in itself. When it was put
to him, whether he was willing to push the free-trade principle so far
as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labor to drive our
free-grown sugar out of the market, he was often inclined to give way
before this mode of putting the question, and to imagine that there
really was a collision between free trade and free labor. Therefore a
certain sentimental plea came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to
the sugar duties.

Many of the old Antislavery party found themselves deceived by this
fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation against the reduction of the
duty on foreign sugar. On the other hand, it was made tolerably clear
that the labor was not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labor really suffered
from no inconvenience except the fact that it was still manufactured on
the most crude, old-fashioned, and uneconomical methods. Besides, the
time had gone by when the majority of the English people could be
convinced that a lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to
foreign sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and somewhat
eager struggle, the principle of free trade was allowed to prevail in
regard to sugar. The duties on sugar were made equal. The growth of the
sugar plantations was admitted on the same terms into that country,
without any reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
the conditions under which it was grown.

It had for a long time been stoutly proclaimed that the abolition of
slavery must be the destruction of our West Indian colonies. Years had
elapsed and the West Indian colonies still survived. Now the cry of
alarm was taken up again, and it was prophesied that although they had
got over the abolition of slavery they never could survive the
equalization of the sugar duties. Jamaica certainly had fallen greatly
away from her period of temporary and factitious prosperity. Jamaica was
owned and managed by a class of proprietors who resembled in many ways
some of the planters of the States of America farthest south--of the
States toward the mouth of the Mississippi. They lived in a kind of
careless luxury, mortgaging their estates as deeply as they possibly
could, throwing over to the coming year the superabundant debts of the
last, and only managing to keep their heads above water so long as the
people of England, by favoring them with a highly protective system,
enabled them still to compete against those who grew sugar on better and
more economical plans. The whole island was given over to neglect and
mismanagement. The emancipated negroes took but little trouble to
cultivate the plots of ground they had obtained, and were quite content
if they could scratch enough from the soil to enable them barely to
live. Therefore Jamaica did at a certain time fall far below the level
of her former seeming prosperity.

The other islands had been better managed. Their estates were less
encumbered by debt, and they passed through each successive crisis
without sustaining any noticeable injury. In most of these islands the
product increased steadily after the emancipation of the slaves. The
negroes then began to work earnestly, and education grew not greatly but
distinctly among all classes. Jamaica, the most unfortunate among the
islands, has been constantly the scene of little outbursts of more or
less serious rebellion. As the late Lord Chief Justice of England
observed in a charge on a famous occasion, "The soil of the island might
seem to have been drenched in blood." But these disturbances, or
insurrections, or whatever they may be called, did not increase in
number after the abolition of slavery and after the equalization of the
sugar duties, but, on the contrary, decreased. During our time only one
considerable disturbance has taken place in Jamaica, and in former years
such tumult was of frequent recurrence. In the West Indies we have,
therefore, the most severe test to which the principle of free trade
could well be subjected. It is not too much to say that in the more
fortunate of these islands it has established its claim, and that even
in the least fortunate no evidence whatever has been given that the
people would have been in any way the better off if the old system had
been retained.

The navigation laws had, too, a certain external attraction about them
which induced many men, not actually Protectionists, to believe in their
necessity. The principle of the navigation laws was to impose such
restrictions of tariff and otherwise as to exclude foreign vessels from
taking any considerable part in our carrying trade. The law was first
enacted in Oliver Cromwell's day, at a time when the Dutch were rivals
on the sea, and when it was thought desirable to repress, by protective
legislation, the energy of such experienced seamen and pushing traders.
The navigation law was modified by Mr. Huskisson in 1823, but only so
far as to establish that which we now know so well as the principle of
reciprocity. Any nation which removed restrictions from British merchant
marine was favored with a similar concession. The idea also was that
these navigation laws, keeping foreigners out of England's carrying
trade, enabled her to maintain always a supply of sailors who could at
any time be transferred from the merchant marine to the royal navy, and
thus be made to assist in the defence of the country.

Of course, the ship-owners themselves upheld the navigation laws, on the
plea that, if the trade were thrown open by the withdrawal of
protection, their chances would be gone; that they could not contend
against the foreigners upon equal terms; that their interests must
suffer, and that Great Britain would in the end be a still severer
sufferer, because, from the lack of encouragement given to the native
traders and the sailors, England would one day or another be left at the
mercy of some strong power which, with wiser regulations, would keep up
her protective system and with it her naval strength.

Nevertheless, the ship-owners and the Protectionists and those who
raised the alarm-cry about England's naval defences were unable to
maintain their sophisms in the face of growing education and of the
impulse given by the adoption of free trade. In 1849 the navigation laws
were abolished. We believe there are very few ship-owners who will not
now admit that the prosperity of their trade has grown immensely, in
place of suffering, from the introduction of the free-trade principle in
navigation as well as in com and sugar.




(1846) THE DISCOVERY OF NEPTUNE, Sir Oliver Lodge


Among modern astronomical discoveries none has been regarded as more
important than that of Neptune, the outermost known planet of the solar
system. It was a rich reward to the watchers of the sky when this new
planet swam into their ken. This discovery was hailed by astronomers as
"the most conspicuous triumph of the theory of gravitation." Long after
Copernicus even, the genius of philosophers was slow to grasp the full
conception of a spherical earth and its relations with the heavenly
bodies as presented by him. So it was also with the final acceptance of
Newton's demonstration of the universal law of gravitation (1685),
whereby he showed that "the motions of the solar system were due to the
action of a central force directed to the body at the centre of the
system, and varying inversely with the square of the distance from it."
After making this discovery, Newton himself, with the aid of others,
especially of the French mathematician Picard, labored for years to
verify it, and still further verification was necessary before it could
be fully comprehended and accepted by the scientific world. The
discovery of the asteroids or small planets revolving in orbits between
those of Mars and Jupiter, aided in confirming the Newtonian theory,
which the discovery of Uranus, by Sir William Herschel (1781), had done
much to establish.

From the time of Sir William Herschel the science of stellar astronomy,
revealing the enormous distances of the stars--none of them really
fixed, but all having real or apparent motions--was rapidly developed.
The discovery of stellar planets, at almost incalculable distances,
still further changed the aspect of the heavens as viewed by
astronomers, and when the capital discovery of Neptune was made those
men of science were well prepared for studying its nature and
importance. These matters, as well as the simultaneous calculation of
the place of Neptune by Adams and Leverrier, and its actual discovery by
Galle, are set forth by Sir Oliver Lodge in a manner as charming for
simplicity as it is valuable in its summary of scientific learning.

The explanation by Newton of the observed facts of the motion of the
moon, the way he accounted for precession and nutation and for the
tides; the way in which Laplace explained every detail of the planetary
motions--these achievements may seem to the professional astronomer
equally, if not more, striking and wonderful; but of the facts to be
explained in these cases the general public is necessarily more or less
ignorant, and so no beauty or thoroughness of treatment appeals to it or
excites its imagination. But to predict in the solitude of the study,
with no weapons other than pen, ink, and paper, an unknown and
enormously distant world, to calculate its orbit when as yet it had
never been seen, and to be able to say to a practical astronomer, "Point
your telescope in such a direction at such a time, and you will see a
new planet hitherto unknown to man"--this must always appeal to the
imagination with dramatic intensity, and must awaken some interest in
the dullest.

Prediction is no novelty in science; and in astronomy least of all is it
a novelty. Thousands of years ago Thales, and others whose very names we
have forgotten, could predict eclipses, but not without a certain degree
of inaccuracy. And many other phenomena were capable of prediction by
accumulated experience. A gap between Mars and Jupiter caused a missing
planet to be suspected and looked for, and to be found in a hundred
pieces. The abnormal proper-motion of Sirius suggested to Bessel the
existence of an unseen companion. And these last instances seem to
approach very near the same class of prediction as that of the discovery
of Neptune. Wherein, then, lies the difference? How comes it that some
classes of prediction--such as that if you put your finger in fire it
will be burned--are childishly easy and commonplace, while others excite
in the keenest intellects the highest feelings of admiration? Mainly,
the difference lies, first, in the grounds on which the prediction is
based; second, in the difficulty of the investigation whereby it is
accomplished; third, in the completeness and the accuracy with which it
can be verified. In all these points, the discovery of Neptune stands
out as one among the many verified predictions of science, and the
circumstances surrounding it are of singular interest.

Three distinct observations suffice to determine the orbit of a planet
completely, but it is well to have the three observations as far apart
as possible so as to minimize the effects of minute but necessary errors
of observation. When Uranus was found old records of stellar
observations were ransacked with the object of discovering whether it
had ever been unwittingly seen before. If seen, it had been thought, of
course, to be a star--for it shines like a star of the sixth magnitude,
and can therefore be just seen without a telescope if one knows
precisely where to look for it and if one has good sight--but if it had
been seen and catalogued as a star it would have moved from its place,
and the catalogue would by that entry be wrong. The thing to do,
therefore, was to examine all the catalogues for errors, to see whether
the stars entered there actually existed, or whether any were missing.
If a wrong entry were discovered, it might of course have been due to
some clerical error, though that is hardly probable considering the care
spent in making these records, or it might have been a tailless comet,
or possibly the newly found planet.

The next thing to do was to calculate backward, to see whether by any
possibility the planet could have been in that place at that time.
Examined in this way the tabulated observations of Flamsteed showed that
he had unwittingly observed Uranus five distinct times; the first time
in 1690, nearly a century before Herschel discovered its true nature.
But more remarkable still, Le Monnier, of Paris, had observed it eight
times in one month, cataloguing it each time as a different star. If
only he had reduced and compared his observations, he would have
anticipated Herschel by twelve years. As it was, he missed it. It was
seen once by Bradley also. Altogether it had been seen twenty times.

These old observations of Flamsteed and those of Le Monnier, combined
with those made after Herschel's discovery, were very useful in
determining an exact orbit for the new planet, and its motion was
considered thoroughly known. For a time Uranus seemed to travel
regularly, and as expected, in the orbit which had been calculated for
it; but early in the present century it began to be slightly refractory,
and by 1820 its actual place showed quite a distinct discrepancy from
its position as calculated with the aid of the old observations. It was
thought at first that this discrepancy must be due to inaccuracies in
the older observations, and they were accordingly rejected, and tables
prepared for the planet based on the newer and more accurate
observations only. But by 1830 it became apparent that it did not
coincide with even these. The error amounted to about 20". By 1840 it
was as much as 90", or a minute and a half. This discrepancy is quite
distinct, but still it is very small; and had two objects been in the
heavens at once, the actual Uranus and the theoretical Uranus, no
unaided eye could possibly have distinguished them or detected that they
were other than a single star.

The errors of Uranus, though small, were enormously greater than other
things which had certainly been observed; there was an unmistakable
discrepancy between theory and observation. Some cause was evidently at
work on this distant planet, causing it to disagree with its motion as
calculated according to the law of gravitation. If the law of
gravitation held exactly at so great a distance from the sun, there must
be some perturbing force acting on it besides all the known forces that
had been fully taken into account. Could it be an outer planet? The
question occurred to several, and one or two tried to solve the problem,
but were soon stopped by the tremendous difficulties of calculation.

The ordinary problem of perturbation is difficult enough: Given a
disturbing planet in such and such a position, to find the perturbations
it produces. This was the problem that Laplace worked out in the
_Mecanique Celeste_.

But the inverse problem--given the perturbations, to find the planet
that causes them--such a problem had never yet been attacked, and by
only a few had its possibility been conceived. Friedrich Bessel made
preparations for solving this mystery in 1840, but he was prevented by
fatal illness.

In 1841 the difficulties of the problem presented by these residual
perturbations of Uranus excited the imagination of a young student, an
undergraduate of Cambridge--John Couch Adams by name--and he determined
to make a study of them as soon as he was through his _tripos_. In
January, 1843, he was graduated as senior wrangler, and shortly
afterward he set to work. In less than two years he reached a definite
conclusion; and in October, 1845, he wrote to the astronomer-royal, at
Greenwich, Professor Airy, saying that the perturbations of Uranus could
be explained by assuming the existence of an outer planet, which he
reckoned was now situated in a specified latitude and longitude.

We know now that had the astronomer-royal put sufficient faith in this
result to point his big telescope at the spot indicated and begin
sweeping for a planet, he would have detected it within 1-3/4 of the
place assigned to it by Adams. But anyone in the situation of the
astronomer-royal knows that almost every post brings absurd letters from
ambitious correspondents, some of them having just discovered perpetual
motion, or squared the circle, or proved the earth flat, or discovered
the constitution of the moon or of ether or of electricity; and in this
mass of rubbish it requires great skill and patience to detect such gems
of value as may exist.

Now this letter of Adams's was indeed a jewel of the first water, and no
doubt bore on its face a very different appearance from the chaff of
which I have spoken; but still Adams was unknown: he had been graduated
as senior wrangler, it is true, but somebody must be graduated as senior
wrangler every year, and a first-rate mathematician is not produced
every year. Those behind the scenes--as Professor Airy of course was,
having been a senior wrangler himself--knew perfectly well that the
labeling of a young man on his taking his degree is much more worthless
as a testimony to his genius and ability than the general public is apt
to suppose.

Was it likely that a young and unknown man should have solved so
extremely difficult a problem? It was altogether unlikely. Still, he
should be tested: he should be asked for explanations concerning some of
the perturbations which Professor Airy had noticed, and see whether he
could explain these also by his hypothesis. If he could, there might be
something in his theory. If he failed--well, there was an end of it. The
questions were not difficult. They concerned the error of the radius
vector. Adams could have answered them with perfect ease; but sad to
say, though a brilliant mathematician, he was not a man of business. He
did not answer Professor Airy's letter.

It may seem a pity to many that the Greenwich equatorial was not pointed
at the place, just to see whether any foreign object did happen to be in
that neighborhood; but it is no light matter to derange the work of an
observatory, and alter the plans laid out for the staff, into a sudden
sweep for a new planet on the strength of a mathematical investigation
just received by post. If observatories were conducted on these
unsystematic and spasmodic principles they would not be the calm,
accurate, satisfactory places they are.

Of course, if anyone had known that a new planet was to be found for the
looking, _any_ course would have been justified; but no one could know
this. I do not suppose that Adams himself felt an absolute confidence in
his attempted prediction. So there the matter dropped. Adams's
communication was pigeonholed, and remained in seclusion eight or nine
months.

Meanwhile, and quite independently, something of the same sort was going
on in France. A brilliant young mathematician, Urban Jean Joseph
Leverrier, born in Normandy in 1811, held the post of astronomical
professor at the Ecole Polytechnique, founded by Napoleon. His first
published papers directed attention to his wonderful powers; and the
official head of astronomy in France, the famous Arago, suggested to him
the unexplained perturbations of Uranus as a worthy object for his fresh
and well-armed vigor. At once he set to work in a thorough and
systematic way. He first considered whether the discrepancies could be
due to errors in the tables or errors in the old observations. He
discussed them with minute care, and came to the conclusion that they
were not thus to be explained away. This part of the work he published
in November, 1845.

He then set to work to consider the perturbations produced by Jupiter
and Saturn to see whether they had been accurately allowed for, or
whether some minute improvements could be made sufficient to destroy the
irregularities. He introduced several fresh terms into these
calculations, but none of them of sufficient importance to do more than
partly explain the mysterious perturbations. He next examined the
various hypotheses that had been suggested to account for them. Were
they caused by a failure in the law of gravitation or by the presence of
a resisting medium? Were they due to some large but unseen satellite or
to a collision with some comet?

All these theories he examined and dismissed for various reasons. The
perturbations were due to some continuous cause--for instance, some
unknown planet. Could this planet be inside the orbit of Uranus? No, for
then it would perturb Saturn and Jupiter also, and they were not
perturbed by it. It must, therefore, be some planet outside the orbit of
Uranus, and in all probability, according to Bode's empirical law, at
nearly double the distance from the sun that Uranus is. Finally he
proceeded to determine where this planet was, and what its orbit must be
to produce the observed disturbances.

Not without failures and disheartening complications was this part of
the process completed. This was, after all, the real tug of war. Many
unknown quantities existed: its mass, its distance, its eccentricity,
the obliquity of its orbit, its position--nothing was known, in fact,
about the planet except the microscopic disturbance it caused in Uranus,
several thousand million miles away from it. Without going into further
detail, suffice it to say that in June, 1846, he published his last
paper, and in it announced to the world his theory as to the situation
of the planet.

Professor Airy received a copy of this paper before the end of the
month, and was astonished to find that Leverrier's theoretical place for
the planet was within 1 deg. of the place Adams had assigned to it eight
months before. So striking a coincidence seemed sufficient to justify a
Herschelian sweep for a week or two. But a sweep for so distant a planet
would be no easy matter. When seen through a large telescope it would
still only look like a star, and it would require considerable labor and
watching to sift it out from the other stars surrounding it. We know
that Uranus had been seen twenty times, and thought to be a star, before
its true nature was discovered by Herschel; and Uranus is only about
half as far away as Neptune.

Neither at Paris nor at Greenwich was any optical search undertaken; but
Professor Airy wrote to ask M. Leverrier the same old question that he
had fruitlessly put to Adams: Did the new theory explain the errors of
the radius vector or not? The reply of Leverrier was both prompt and
satisfactory--these errors were explained, as well as all the others.
The existence of the object was then for the first time officially
believed in. The British Association met that year at Southampton, and
Sir John Herschel was one of its sectional presidents. In his inaugural
address, on September 10, 1846, he called attention to the researches of
Leverrier and Adams in these memorable words:

"The past year has given to us the new [minor] planet Astraea; it has
done more--it has given us the probable prospect of another. We see it
as Columbus saw America from the shores of Spain. Its movements have
been felt trembling along the far-reaching line of our analysis with a
certainty hardly inferior to ocular demonstration."

It was nearly time to begin to look for it. So the astronomer-royal
thought on reading Leverrier's paper. But as the national telescope at
Greenwich was otherwise occupied, he wrote to Professor Challis, at
Cambridge, to know whether he would permit a search to be made for it
with the Northumberland equatorial, the large telescope at Cambridge
University, presented to it by one of the Dukes of Northumberland.

Professor Challis said he would conduct the search himself, and shortly
began a leisurely and dignified series of sweeps around the place
designated by theory, cataloguing all the stars he observed, intending
afterward to sort out his observations, compare one with another, and
find out whether any one star had changed its position; because if it
had it must be the planet. Thus, without giving an excessive time to the
business, he accumulated a host of observations.

Professor Challis thus actually saw the planet twice--on August 4 and
August 12, 1846--without knowing it. If he had had a map of the heavens
containing telescopic stars down to the tenth magnitude, and if he had
compared his observations with this map as they were made, the process
would have been easy and the discovery quick. But he had no such map.
Nevertheless one was in existence. It had just been completed in that
country of enlightened method and industry--Germany. Doctor Bremiker had
not indeed completed his great work--a chart of the whole zodiac down to
stars of the tenth magnitude--but portions of it were completed, and the
special region where the new planet was expected to appear happened to
be among the portions finished. But in England this was not known.

Meanwhile Adams wrote to the astronomer-royal several additional
communications, making improvements in his theory, and giving what he
considered nearer and nearer approximations for the place of the planet.
He also now answered quite satisfactorily, but too late, the question
about the radius vector sent to him months before.

Leverrier was likewise engaged in improving this theory and in
considering how best the optical search could be conducted. Actuated
probably by the knowledge that in such matters as cataloguing and
mapping Germany was then, as now, far ahead of all the other nations, he
wrote in September (the same year that Sir John Herschel delivered his
eloquent address at Southampton) to Berlin. Leverrier wrote to Doctor
Galle, head of the observatory at Berlin, saying to him, clearly and
decidedly, that the new planet was now in or close to such and such a
position, and that if he would point his telescope to that part of the
heavens he would see it; and moreover that he would be able to tell it
from a star by its having a sensible magnitude, or disk, instead of
being a mere point.

Galle got the letter on September 23, 1846. That same evening he pointed
his telescope to the place Leverrier told him, and saw the planet. He
recognized it first by its appearance. To his practised eye it did seem
to have a small disk, and not quite the same aspect as an ordinary star.
He then consulted Bremiker's great star-chart, the part just engraved
and finished, and, sure enough, no such star was there. Undoubtedly it
was the planet.

The news flashed over Europe at the maximum speed with which news could
travel at that date (which was not very fast); and by October 1st
Professor Challis and Mr. Adams heard it at Cambridge, and realized that
in so far as there was competition in such a matter England was out of
the race.

It was an unconscious race to all concerned, however. The French
scientists knew nothing of the search in England. Adams's papers had
never been published; and very annoyed the French were when a claim was
set up in his behalf to a share in this magnificent discovery. As for
Adams himself, we are told that by no word did he show resentment at the
loss of the practical consummation of his discovery. His part in any
controversy that arose was calm and dignified; but for a time his
friends fought a public battle for his fame. It so happened that the
public took a keener interest than it usually takes in scientific
predictions; but the discussion has now settled down. All the world
honors the bright genius and mathematical skill of John Couch Adams, and
recognizes that he first solved the problem by calculation. All the
world, too, perceives clearly the no less eminent mathematical talents
of M. Leverrier, but it recognizes in him something more than the mere
mathematician--the man of energy, decision, and character.




(1846) THE ACQUISITION OF CALIFORNIA, Henry B. Dawson


In the history of the United States, the acquisition of California,
carrying with it that of New Mexico, was a peculiar and unusual event,
and one of immense significance in the expansion and development of the
Republic. Together with the annexation of Texas, it was the most
important result of the Mexican War. The California country, formerly an
indeterminate territory of vast extent, was settled by Spanish
missionaries in the seventeenth century. Their settlements within the
present limits of the State of California date from the first foundation
of San Diego in 1769. In 1822 the entire region called California became
a part of the Mexican Republic, and it remained a possession of Mexico
until the time of the transfer described below.

At the beginning of 1846 the population of California included, with
about two hundred thousand Indians, six thousand Mexicans and perhaps
two hundred Americans. War against Mexico had been declared in May,
1845, and already General Taylor had won the battles of Palo Alto and
Resaca de la Palma, and had compelled the surrender of Monterey. While
these operations were leading the United States forces to the rapid
accomplishment of their work in Mexico proper, other movements were
undertaken, the execution and outcome of which form the subject of Mr.
Dawson's narrative. In 1848 California and New Mexico were ceded to the
United States.

Immediately after the opening of hostilities in the valley of the Rio
Grande (March, 1846), among the expeditions which were organized by the
Federal authorities was one to move against and take possession of
California and New Mexico, two provinces in the northern part of the
enemy's country. The command of this expedition had been vested in
General Stephen W. Kearney, and the force under his command had
rendezvoused at Fort Leavenworth; and the most energetic measures had
been adopted to insure its early departure and its ultimate success.

Having completed all the arrangements, on June 26th the main body of
this expedition had moved from the fort; and after a rapid but
interesting march of eight hundred seventy-three miles, on August 18th
it entered and took possession of Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico,
the Mexican forces, numbering four thousand, which had been collected to
defend the town, having dispersed, without offering the least
opposition, as it approached.

While these operations in New Mexico and on the western frontier of the
United States were taking place, Brevet-Captain John C. Fremont, who had
been engaged in explorations on the western slope of the Rocky
Mountains, had also revolutionized the Province of California, and, to
some extent at least, had anticipated the movements of the expedition
commanded by General Kearney. The character of his mission being
scientific and peaceful rather than warlike, he had not had an officer
or soldier of the regular army in his company; and his whole force had
consisted of sixty-two men employed by himself for security against the
Indians and for procuring subsistence in the wilderness and desert
country through which he had passed. For the purpose of obtaining game
for his men and grass for his horses, in an uninhabited part of
California, he had, during the winter of 1845-1846, solicited and
obtained permission from the Mexican authorities to winter in the Valley
of San Joaquin; but he had scarcely established himself before he
received advices that the Mexican commander was preparing to attack him
under the pretext that under the cover of a scientific mission he was
exciting the American settlers in that vicinity to revolt.

In view of this threatened attack, and for the purpose of repelling it,
Lieutenant Fremont immediately occupied a mountain which overlooked
Monterey--although it was thirty miles from that city--and having
intrenched it and raised the flag of the United States he waited the
approach of the enemy. After remaining there until March 10, 1846, he
retired to the northward, intending to march, by way of Oregon, to the
United States; but about the middle of May, after he had quietly passed
into Oregon, he had received information through Samuel Neal and Levi
Sigler, two hunters who had been sent after him from Lassen's _rancho_,
that the Mexican Governor of California was pursuing him, while the
Indians, by whom he was surrounded, instigated by the enemy, had shown
signs of hostility, and had killed or wounded five of his men.

Under these circumstances, on June 6, 1846, Lieutenant Fremont had
resolved to turn on his pursuers with the little party under his
command, and to seek safety, not merely in the overthrow of his
pursuers, but in that of the entire Government of Mexico in the Province
of California. Accordingly, on June 11th, Lieutenant Fremont, assisted
by Captain Merritt and fourteen of the settlers, had attacked and
captured an escort of horses destined for General Castro's
troops--Lieutenant Arce, fourteen men, and two hundred horses remaining
in his hands as the trophies of his victory. On the 15th the military
post of Sonoma was surprised, and General Vallejo, Captain Vallejo,
Colonel Greuxdon and several other officers, nine pieces of brass
cannon, two hundred fifty stands of muskets, and other stores and arms
were taken; and on the 25th the military commandant of the Province, who
had moved toward the post with a heavy force to retake it, was attacked
by Lieutenant Fremont and twenty men, and completely routed. Having thus
cleared that part of the Province north of the Bay of San Francisco of
the enemy, it is said that on July 5th Captain Fremont had assembled the
American settlers at Sonoma, addressed them upon the dangers of their
situation, and recommended a declaration of independence and war on
Mexico as the only remedy; and that the hardy frontiersmen promptly
accepted the proposal and raised the flag of independent California--a
bear and a star on a red ground.

While these revolutionary movements were destroying the power of Mexico
in the interior of the Province of California, and the expedition under
General Kearney--ignorant of the fact that the work had been done
already--was approaching its eastern borders for the same purpose, the
naval force of the United States in the Pacific, under Commodore Sloat,
had been assisting in the work of conquest. Having heard of the opening
of hostilities on the Rio Grande, the Commodore--then at
Mazatlan--hastened with the Savannah to Monterey in California, where he
arrived on July 2d, and on the 7th he took possession of the town
without opposition; the custom-house was seized, the American flag
raised, and California declared to be "henceforward a part of the United
States."

Within a few days intelligence of the action of Commodore Sloat was
received by the revolutionary leaders at Sonoma; and a battalion of
mounted riflemen which had been organized among them was immediately
moved to Monterey, the flag of the United States was substituted for the
"bear and star," and the authority of the Commodore was immediately
recognized. This battalion of mounted riflemen on its arrival at
Monterey, July 23, 1846, was mustered into the service of the United
States by Commodore Stockton, who had succeeded Commodore Sloat in
command of the squadron--Captain Fremont being appointed its commandant,
and Lieutenant A. H. Gillespie, of the Marines, its second officer--and
it was immediately despatched on the sloop-of-war Cyane to San Diego for
the purpose of cutting off the retreat of General Castro, of the Mexican
service, who had encamped and fortified his position near Ciudad de los
Angeles, while the Commodore with his sailors--who landed from the
Congress at San Pedro--moved against him in front. The expedition was
eminently successful, as the Mexicans on the approach of the Commodore
immediately evacuated their camp and fled in the greatest
confusion--although most of the principal officers were subsequently
captured--and, on August 13th, the Ciudad de los Angeles was occupied,
again without opposition, by the American troops and seamen, and the
conquest of California was apparently completed.

A short time afterward Commodore Stockton appointed Captain Fremont
Governor of the Territory into which, by the proclamation of Commodore
Sloat, the Province had been transformed; while Captain Gillespie was
left, with nineteen men, in possession of Los Angeles; Lieutenant
Talbot, of the Topographical Engineers, with nine men, was left at Santa
Barbara; and, with his squadron, Commodore Stockton proceeded to San
Francisco; while Governor Fremont, on September 8th, also moved to
Monterey.

The main body had no sooner left Los Angeles than the Californians--who
before the departure of the Commodore and the Governor had held secret
meetings for the purpose--rose in arms for the expulsion of the invaders
of their country. Indeed an attempt appears to have been intended before
the Governor left the city; but, by timely precautions, it had been
prevented; although the purpose and determination still continued and
were called into requisition at a more convenient season. The necessary
preparations having been made for that purpose under the directions of
Jose Antonio Carrillo, a professed conspirator of that vicinity, at an
early hour on the morning of September 23d, the quarters of Captain
Gillespie were attacked by Cerbulo Varela--a metamorphosed captain under
Governor Fremont--at the head of sixty-five men, under cover of a thick
fog. The morning was auspicious for such purposes, yet the Captain was
not surprised; and the twenty-one rifles which he controlled were
quickly brought to bear on the assailants, who retired soon afterward
with three of their number killed and several wounded; and at daylight
the remainder were driven from the town, with the loss of several taken
prisoners, by a few men under Lieutenant Hensley, and Doctor Gilchrist,
of the navy.

The insurgents who were thus expelled from the city formed a nucleus
around which the disaffected gathered; and as the party gained strength
day by day, it harassed the little garrison and killed one of its
number. There was but little concert of action in its ranks, however;
and as the rival aspirants to power struggled for authority, while the
numbers rapidly increased, the efficiency of the insurgents was but
slightly increased. At length, in a spirit of compromise, Captain
Antonio Flores was urged to take the command of the party, and
reluctantly accepted it; and he soon found himself at the head of six
hundred men armed with lances, _escopetas_, and a brass six-pounder,
light and well mounted.

In the mean time the little garrison had found an old honeycombed iron
six-pounder, and had drilled out the spike, cleaned and mounted it, and
by melting the lead pipes of a distillery had provided--unknown to the
insurgents--thirty rounds of ball and grape for it. Two other pieces
having been added to this, on the following day, the little garrison and
its gallant commander resolved to die rather than surrender,
notwithstanding the extreme efforts which had been made to strengthen
its position, and the great fatigue which was incident thereto. To
render his little party still more secure, however, on September 27th
Captain Gillespie withdrew his command from his quarters in the city and
occupied a height which commanded it, when he strengthened his position
and prepared for an obstinate defence.

No sooner had this movement been effected than Captain Flores sent Don
Eulogeo Celis to inquire "on what terms Captain Gillespie would
surrender the city"; and that officer, after consulting with his
subordinates, answered that if the enemy would consent that he should
march out of the city with the honors of war, colors flying and drums
beating; that he should take everything with him; that he should be
furnished with means for transporting his baggage and provisions, at his
own expense; and that the enemy should not come within a league of his
party while on its line of march to San Pedro, he would accept those
terms, and no others would be considered; and Captain Flores should be
held responsible for any damage which might ensue, in case they were
rejected. After some negotiations these terms were offered by Captain
Flores and accepted by Captain Gillespie; and, on September 29th, the
garrison began its march; reached San Pedro on the same evening, and on
October 4th embarked on the Vandalia, after spiking its three old
guns--an exploit which, when the circumstances under which Captain
Gillespie's force, the strength of his opponent, and the temper of the
people among whom he moved are taken into consideration, may well be
ranked as one of the most brilliant feats of that remarkable campaign.

While these difficulties were surrounding Captain Gillespie at Los
Angeles, Lieutenant Talbot, at Santa Barbara with his nine men, was not
less dangerously situated; and when the former had made terms with the
insurgents, Manuel Garpio with two hundred men moved against Lieutenant
Talbot, surrounded the town, and demanded his surrender, offering two
hours for his deliberation. As the men had resolved that they would not
give up their arms, and as the barracks were untenable with so small a
force, the Lieutenant resolved to abandon the town and push for the
hills; and, strange to say, he marshalled his men and marched out of the
town without opposition--"those who lay on the road retreated to the
main force, which was on the lower side of the town."

Having reached the hills, he encamped, and remained there eight days,
when the Californians endeavored to rout him out, but were repulsed with
the loss of a horse. The insurgents then offered him his arms and
freedom if he would engage to remain neutral in the anticipated
hostilities, but "he sent word back that he preferred to fight." They
next built fires about him and burned him out; but in doing so they did
not capture or injure him, and he pushed through the mountains for
Monterey; and after a month's travel, in which he endured unheard-of
hardships and suffering, he reached that place in safety.

Intelligence of the insurrection having reached Commodore Stockton at
San Francisco and Lieutenant-Colonel Fremont at Sacramento, both took
immediate steps to check its progress and to punish the offenders. In
conformity with the Commodore's orders Lieutenant-Colonel Fremont
hastened to San Francisco, whence he embarked, with one hundred sixty
men, on the ship Sterling, for Santa Barbara, to which port the frigate
Savannah (Captain Mervine) had previously been ordered; while, on the
same day, the Commodore in person sailed for the same port in the
Congress.

The latter vessel reached San Pedro on October 6th, and at sunrise on
the 7th Captain Mervine landed with his seamen and marines; and after
being joined by Captain Gillespie and his brave-hearted little party, he
found himself at the head of three hundred ten men, "as brave and as
valiant as ever were led to battle upon any field." At eight o'clock the
party commenced its march toward Los Angeles, Captain Gillespie being in
advance, and when the column reached the hills of Palo Verde the
insurgents showed themselves and opened a fire with their _escopetas_.
The march was rapid; and the jolly tars, unused to such extended
journeys, appear to have suffered from its effects; in consequence of
which, although the enemy gradually fell back before the advancing
column, between one and two o'clock, when near the Rancho de los
Domingos, fourteen miles from San Pedro, it became necessary to halt and
encamp for the night.

As may have been expected, the sailors and marines were ashore, and the
strict discipline which "the deck" had inculcated appears to have been
left on board the frigate. As a necessary consequence the camp displayed
but little of the order which such a locality should have insured; and
many and marvellous were the adventures of that night; while, on the
other hand, the enemy profited by the delay, by the moral effect of the
disorder with which the march had been conducted, and by the entire
absence of any artillery.

On the following morning at daylight the column was again put in motion;
and with Captain Gillespie's men in front, in still greater disorder
than on the preceding day, it moved toward Los Angeles, twelve miles
distant. It had marched only three miles, when, posted behind a small
stream which intersected the line of march, the advance of the
insurgents--seventy-six men, with a small fieldpiece, under Jose Antonio
Carrillo--was discovered in front; and, as the column approached, a fire
was opened on it, which was answered with a characteristic shout. The
volunteers--Captain Gillespie's command--pressed forward; and by taking
advantage of the neighboring shelter they drove the enemy and compelled
him to abandon his fieldpiece; but before it could be reached and taken
possession of, Captain Mervine gave orders to withdraw. With great
indignation, therefore, the volunteers discontinued the action, and
after picking up his killed and wounded--harassed by the enemy who
pressed after the column, and covered by the volunteers and sixteen
marines, under Captain Gillespie--Captain Mervine slowly and sadly fell
back to San Pedro, where he arrived about dark on the same day,
"Thirteen noble tars were buried on the island in front of San Pedro,"
the victims of this badly managed expedition.

On October 23d the Commodore reached San Pedro--Lieutenant-Colonel
Fremont meanwhile having returned to Monterey--and on the 31st he sailed
for San Diego, which had been invested by the insurgents and needed
assistance. He reached that port a few days afterward; and, with the
assistance of Captain Gillespie's command, the besiegers were repelled,
and a fort was erected to protect the town from similar troubles in
future.

Strenuous efforts were made to obtain horses for the use of the troops,
with some degree of success; and Commodore Stockton sailed toward San
Pedro again. During this temporary absence of the Commodore the
insurgents appear (on November 18, 1846) to have moved against San Diego
a second time, and were again driven back by Captain Gillespie and the
volunteers and marines under his command; and on December 3d a messenger
came into the town bearing a letter from General Kearney, apprising the
Commodore of his approach, and expressing a wish that a communication
might be opened with him that he might be informed of the state of
affairs in California.

It appeared that after the General had taken Santa Fe (on October 1st)
he had moved from that city with the regular cavalry which he had
brought there. Soon afterward (October 7th) he had reduced his force to
one hundred men--sending the remainder back to Santa Fe--and after an
interesting march overland, on December 3, 1846, he had reached Warner's
_rancheria_, the outpost of civilization in California. From there a
letter had been despatched to San Diego by Mr. Stokes, an Englishman who
lived in a neighboring _rancheria_; and on the 4th the command had moved
fifteen miles nearer to the city.

On the receipt of General Kearney's letter, Commodore Stockton
despatched Captain Gillespie to meet him, with a letter of welcome. The
Captain was accompanied by Lieutenant Beale, Midshipman Duncan, ten
seamen, Captain Gibson's company of riflemen (twenty-five men), and a
fieldpiece; and on the 5th he reached the General's camp; when, having
learned on his way that the insurgents were encamped at San Pasqual,
nine miles from the camp, Lieutenant Hammond was sent out by General
Kearney to reconnoitre the enemy's position.

At a very early hour on the 6th the troops were put in motion, Captain
Johnston, with twelve dragoons, forming the advance-guard; the main body
of the General's party, under Captain Moore, following next; after which
moved Captain Gillespie, with Captain Gibson and his small company; and
Lieutenant Davidson, with the General's howitzers brought up the rear.
When the column had reached a hill which overlooked the valley of the
San Pasqual, the insurgents' encampment, it was halted, and the General
gave the final orders to his command: "One thrust of the sabre is worth
a dozen cuts; and depend upon them more than upon the carbines and
rifles." Without further delay the column advanced down the hill; and as
soon as Captain Johnston had struck the plain with his twelve dragoons,
having mistaken the purport of an order from the General, he uttered a
yell, and, without waiting for the support of the main body, dashed on
the heavy ranks of the enemy, falling a victim of his own indiscretion.

The main body hastened, by a flank movement down the hill, to support
the charge of the advance, and received the enemy's fire from an Indian
village on its right flank; but the enemy waited to do no further
mischief, and fled from the charge of the advance before the line could
be formed. Perceiving the defection of the enemy, Captain Moore, with a
portion of his command, pursued the fugitives down the right of the
valley, while Captain Gillespie, with his volunteers, did the same on
the left side--the latter taking prisoner Pablo Beja, the insurgents'
second officer. In this pursuit, however, the ranks of the Americans
were greatly broken; and as the Mexicans far outnumbered them, they soon
afterward made a stand, using their lances with good effect. Captain
Moore fell, pierced in the breast by nine lances; the General was
severely wounded, and his life was saved, from an attack on his rear, by
a ball from Lieutenant Emory. Captain Gillespie was attacked by seven
Californians, received three wounds, and saved himself with great
difficulty; Captain Gibson received two wounds; Lieutenant Hammond
received nine lance wounds in the breast, and many others were severely
injured. For five minutes the enemy held the ground; when, the main body
of the Americans having come up, he again turned and fled.

In this spirited affair about eighty Americans were engaged