Discovery of an Error in the Nautical Almanac. 55 



the observations made wlib ihe Greenwich quadrant at the 

 winlcr solstice ; and I have further added, that it is prnbahle 

 that the obliquity of the ecliptic for that year might not 

 differ much from what Dr. Maskelyne had assigned it to 

 be in tlie sub^equonl Almanacs ; but no where have I said , 

 it is so. This must be left for Dr. Kelly to decide from 

 observations mac;e with instruments in his own observatory, 

 if they exceed in accuracy those at the Royal Observatory at 

 Greenwich ; for till we possess more accurate instruments 

 than the Greenwich quadrant, from wliich this obliquity of 

 the eclipiic was inferred, we must remain in doubt as to 

 its actual quantity. If therefore I am coirect in stating, 

 we can prove no error, I must be allowed to deny my hav- 

 ing adnutted Dr. Kelly to have discovered one. ^^ They 

 allow the French and American astronomers have copied it." 

 With as much truth, founded on the sarne argument, may 

 Dr. Kelly say, that I have allowed not only the French and 

 American astronomers have copied it, but that the Spanish 

 astronomers, the Gern)an astronomers, nay, all the world 

 have copied it. In no part of my letter have I incntioned 

 the name or even alluded to the American astronomers. My 

 allowance therefore of their having copied it, or any part of 

 the Nautical Almanac, must rest upon an alioaance of my 

 not having contradicted Dr. Kelly's declaration of their 

 having copied it; and the same may be said of all the world, 

 considering that no denial is an allowance of the fact, 

 which I cannot on the present occasion grant ; for I must 

 confess that I know not what the American Almanac con- 

 tains, not having seen one for that year. Dr. Kelly should 

 therefore have been a little more cautious when criticizing 

 on the word j?ri7, as used by Mr. Groombridge, which I 

 conceive, and intend to show, will bear a better interpreta- 

 tion than he has given it, — that he did not run into error 

 himself by a misapplication of words, which a negligence 

 of reading such letters, or misconceptitjii of the subject, had 

 led him to adopt. But how shall we reconcile what the 

 Doctor hasjust said with what follows, — "but these writers 

 must contradict something, or what was the use or pretence 

 of their letters?" Dr. Kelly says, jujt before, \v,e have 

 contradicted nothing, and inunediately afterwards says, wc 

 must contradict something : what interpretation will this 

 bear? That we wished to contradict something, and have 

 failed, or that we liave contradicted something ? The Doctor 

 must decide this duplicity of meaning. Again, thei^octor 

 says, " Tliey therefore volunteer the French cause, and deny 

 at considerable length, that their astronomers pretend to 

 D 4 oriiiinal 



