the miracle had been exclusively confined to the worldly, the Clergy would not have given themselves much uneasiness; they would have replied by the epithets, heretic, atheist, and miserable unbeliever; and so the contest would have continued. Unfortunately for the speculators, however, certain Priests raised their voices against the miracle of Salette, and pronounced the appearance of the Virgin an imposture; and for this reason: Between the Ecclesiastics, who were turning the popular superstition to profit, there was a rivalry and competition. Near the chapel that had been constructed on Mount Salette, there had long existed other chapels-Notre Dame de Fourviéres, at Lyons, and Notre Dame de Laus, near Gap-which had previously attracted a considerable number of devotees. These were now deserted for the new pilgrimage; novelty being as attractive in ecclesiastical matters as in secular. The Priests of Fourviéres and Laus, therefore, who had previously netted considerable sums by their own pilgrims, were by no means pleased to remain in penurious solitude; and, consequently, they in turn interrogated the young shepherds, managed to extract contradictory evidence from them, proclaimed the whole affair a falsehood, and threw general discredit on the miracle of Salette. Cardinal Bonald, Archbishop of Lyons, and patron of the chapel of Fourvières, took part in the quarrel, and published a pastoral letter; in which, contrary to the opinion of the Bishop of Grenoble and his Clergy, he rebuked those who had allowed themselves to be deceived by false appearances, and who had turned a disputed miracle to their own pecuniary advantage.

What a spectacle of shame for the Church of Rome! Priest against Priest, Bishop against Bishop, altar against altar; insults and recriminations on both sides. And from what cause? For a matter of money merely, resembling two parties of competing mountebanks animated by jealousy, and labouring, per fas ac nefas, to make the greatest possible number of dupes. How could a people possibly escape infidelity when tutored by a Church directed by such men? The Bishop and Priests of Grenoble, thus attacked by VOL. XIX. Second Series.

R

members of their own order, resolved to apply to the "Holy Father" the Pope. They succeeded in making the two children write their secrets in letters, which were sealed in the presence of witnesses, and two Ecclesiastics were sent to Rome commissioned to lay the letters before Pio Nono. But the Pontiff had studied the oracles of Delphi, and knew how to express an ambiguity. He pronounced neither for one side nor the other, but contented himself with some general reflections which meant nothing. "After having

read the letters," says one of the envoys, "he exhibited emotion, his lips were compressed, and he ejaculated, 'France is threatened with great woes, but she alone is not to blame. Germany, Italy, and the whole of Europe, are so likewise they merit severe retribution."" What reference these enigmatical words had to the question of Salette it would be difficult to say; and as they decided nothing, the controversy continued with acerbity.

The Abbé Deleon, Abbé Cartelier, and other Priests, thereupon composed a formidable volume of four hundred pages, entitled, "Salette before the Pope," in which they affirm: 1st. That the circumstances of the pretended miracle had been misrepresented in several essential points. 2d. That the so-called Virgin Mary was only an eccentrie and visionary Nun (Mademoiselle Lamerlière), who had quitted her convent and was walking on Mount Salette. 3d. That no proper means had been taken to accredit the apocryphal miracle. 4th. That the conduct and recent predictions of the two shepherds are impious, heretical, and anarchical. 5th. That the affair of the Salette would introduce into the Church a fatal heresy, &c.

The Pope has decided, and will decide, nothing regarding this memorial, in which the affirmations of one portion of the Popish Clergy are characterized by another portion as lies. A charming unity, certainly. But Mademoiselle Lamerlière, obedient to the instructions of the partisans of the miracle, has recently cited the two Abbés before a court of justice for defamation. The trial, however, has resulted in their acquittal, and Mademoiselle has been admonished to remain at peace.

Such is the state of France.

The pious tremble, the

sceptics mock and scoff, the indifferent shrug their shoulders; Priests, on the one side, attack the miracle, others defend it: but, notwithstanding all the scandals, there are not wanting devotees who still repair in pilgrimage to the chapel of La Salette, and, when there, purchase at a high price the waters of the sacred fountain. So long as there is money to be gained, the authenticity of the miracle will not want supporters.-Correspondent of "The Rock."

LIGHT.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

THE importance of truths elicited by the researches of scientific men, combined with a tendency to frame hypotheses, which seems inseparable from cultivated minds, soon brought into existence speculations as to the nature of light. The corpuscular theory advanced by Newton, supposing light to be particles of the luminous body transmitted through space, long prevailed in the scientific world. However, phenomena not well explained by the corpuscular, gave rise to the undulatory theory, which would make light a wavy agitation of an ethereal medium. Let us observe the consequences of these theories. If a particle of matter weighing one grain moved with the velocity of light, it would possess a force equal to that of a ball one hundred and fifty pounds in weight shot from a gun. Hence, if we assume the corpuscular theory, what would be the force of that infinitely minute mass composing the particles of light? Yet a quantity collected by lenses produced "no effect on the most delicate apparatus contrived to test its materiability." On the other hand, if we assume the undulatory theory, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that, to produce the sensation of red light four hundred millions of millions of vibrations must take place in the retina during a single second; and to produce that of violet, no less than six hundred and ninety-nine millions of millions during the same space of time. Theories which

lead to such wonderful results demand further examination; but such would not answer our present purpose: suffice it to say, that the undulatory theory seems to be now generally adopted, and among its supporters stand the names of Arago, Herschel, and Airey.

It is well that the merits of a theory do not affect the laws of the material world. The laws remain unaltered and unalterable. The immense velocity of light is a fact not dependent upon theory: and how was this discovered? Telescopes had just been invented, and the celestial phenomena brought to light by their means were attracting the attention of scientific Europe, astronomical calculations were bursting the fetters which had so long restrained them, when Olaus Roemer, a Danish astronomer, proposed to himself to find the periodic times of revolution of Jupiter's satellites. In order to effect this, he observed the time that elapsed between two successive eclipses of a satellite; the observation was repeated, the result differed from the previous one; again he made the trial, again it differed. The thought that light has a velocity suggested itself. He observed the time when Jupiter was in conjunction with the Sun; again he observed it when the planet was in opposition, or nearer our world by the diameter of the Earth's orbit. The difference between the results, or the time light took to traverse the one hundred and ninety millions of miles which measure that diameter, was sixteen minutes and twenty-six seconds: therefore, light moves at the rate of one hundred and ninety-two thousand miles every second. We may form some conception of this wonderful velocity from the fact that a cannon-ball, supposing it to move with unabated speed, would take about six years to reach the sun light takes eight minutes and thirteen seconds to cross the same space.

Light is emitted in straight lines in every direction from a luminous body, and continues to proceed in this manner through space, if not intercepted by material bodies. If it meets with such, it is either absorbed, reflected, or refracted. Bodies, with reference to the passage of light through them, are called opaque, translucent, or

transparent. Opaque bodies are those through which light does not pass; through translucent bodies it passes so imperfectly as to prevent objects being distinguished through them; and transparent bodies allow light such free passage as to enable us to perceive objects. It is evident, then, that opaque bodies either absorb or reflect the light; translucent and transparent bodies refract it.

Any space traversed by light, whether occupied by matter or not, is termed a medium. Unoccupied space must be considered as the only perfectly free medium. Transparent and translucent bodies are mediums when light is transmitted by them; but they affect the light to some extent, and that extent differs widely for different bodies. When the medium is free, or homogenous, the light is transmitted in straight lines. In a free medium the intensity of the light decreases as the square of the distance from its source increases: hence, were we suddenly transferred to the planet Mercury, we should be dazzled by the glare of a light something greater than six times that to which we are accustomed; whilst on the distant Neptune we should strain our eyes to catch the dim and indistinct forms around us, with a light diminished to the seven hundred and eighty-fourth part of what we now daily enjoy. In a medium not free, the intensity depends in part upon the foregoing law, and is modified according to the effect produced on the light by the medium. Thus, ere light has reached a depth of seven feet in water, its intensity has been diminished to one-half.

If between a luminous body and a screen we place an opaque body, it intercepts a portion of the light, and a shadow is cast on the screen: if we now remove the screen further off, while the opaque body remains stationary, the shadow will be enlarged, and vice versa. This shows that the rays of light touching the edge of the body, and which mark the limits of the shadow, separate further from each other as they are transmitted further from their source; or, they are divergent. The divergence of the rays decreases as the distance of light from the luminous body increases. This seems anomalous: hence we must remark that the