Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-07-16
The Comet Predicted.

The following interesting facts are taken
from the Manchester (Eng.) Guardian, May
4, 1850. They relate to the return of Charles
the Fifth's Comet, and will show that its ap-
proach has been closely calculated, provided
our present visiter turns out to be the Comet
of 1856:
SIR-Respecting the epoehal return of this
celebrated comet, two predictions have been
presented through the public press One,
by Mr.. Hind, was given in the astronomical
notices; the other, by myself, was given in
| your journal, And now, after an interval OF
/ nearly three years, the former has been give n
| up by Mr.. Hind, and the latter adopted. A
| laborious Investigation has decided in favor
of the latter. The following contrast will
| place the prediction at once before the eye of
| the reader.
Mr.. Hind-The results of my calculation
| have satisfied me-. that its return to peri
helion must be near at hand; the return is
fixed for the end of February. lS4S.
| Hind, in Astronomical Notices, May, 1917.
Mr.. Beswick-I have been engaged in Sc
| refs OF computations, and the result has been
| in my mind a conviction of error in Mr.,
| Kinds prediction....I believe its next APP
| pearance will be about the year 1861
Manchester Guardian, June 10, 1847.
Its next appearance will not be till about
| the year 1861. wish not to disparage the
scientific statement of this excellent caleula-
tor and observer, but to call attention to the
much more probable prediction given above.
Hanchester Guardian, Aprl 10, 1S4S.
However, the expected time came, but the
comet appeared not; month succeeded month,
and at length year followed year, but wait
ing was mere vanity. And now, three years
from the first publication, We have the fol-
lowing improved prediction from Mr.. Hind,
grounded on a full investigation of the Case:
With Halley's elements, the true time OF
revolution of the comet in 1856 was 1l2943
days, and the perturbations should diminish
the ensuing period about 1897 days-whence
we find the next perihelion passage will oc-
cur on August II, 1S60.-Hnd, in a Letter TO
the Times.
A full Investigation of the case has there
fore decided the correctness OF my prediction,
first given in the Guardian. that the return
should not be the year 1913, but ''about the
year 1861" for the epoch is now fixed for
the end of the year 1860, showing nearly tbir-
teen years of an error in Mr.. Kinds previous
prediction. Bearing in mind that the former,
though grounded on d series of computa-
tiOns,' as stated above, was given at time
when the whole array of testimony, talent
and position, were against me, whilst mine
Was the only dissentient voice to Mr.. Kinds
prediction, / do not wonder, upon reviewing
the whole of the circumstances, that in fixing
upon the epoch of '.about the year 1861" in
stead OF 1913, the finger of scorn was private
ly pointed at me when the result was COM
municated to one or two of our scientific saw
ants, who affirmed they should rest upon Mr.
Hind. The complete failure of the first pre-
dictiOn, and full investigation of the whole
matter, have subsequently justified what then
appeared rash and even ridiculous. / have
also asserted it in an astronomical work which
was in the press when both predictions were
published; but both in this work and in the
two letters above referred to, and also when
speaking of the matter in private, have de-
signedly, aud hence invariably, used the
same qualified expression of the time of this
comets return. L have always used these
words "abOut the year 1861" And | have
no doubt that its return, like the time now
fixed upon by MIR. Hind and others. will not
only juftify my caution, but also my compu-
tatiOn-thst the reIurn OF the great comet of
1864 and 1856 will be ''about the year 1861"
Yours, respectfully BEswICk.
Manchester, May l, 1850.