58 Reply to Dr. Kelly's Letter on his supposed 



obliquity oF the ecliptic of 23° 27' 40", or 23° 27' 50". In 

 saying thus, I do not wish it to be understood that I mean 

 it is but of little importance to the astronomer, whether he 

 knows the actual slate of the obliquity of the ecliptic within 

 these limits; I mean only as relates to the use of the Nauti- 

 cal Almanac. Nor do I wish it to be understood that I am 

 givintj praise to the merits of Mr. Groombridge, though 

 considered a partner in this concern : his labours are before 

 the public, and from them the public will judge for them- 

 selves. 



But Dr. Kelly tells us, he should not have noticed either 

 of our letters, had it not been from Mr. Groombridge having 

 staled he pointed out the discrepancy in question to Mr. 

 Pond when he first came into office, adding i/ial he {Dr. 

 Kelly) can affirm luitli perfect truth and conjidence, that in 

 the month of September last Mr. Pond professed himself 

 wholly miaccp/aiiited with any such circumstance ; and yet 

 this gentleman modestly tells us directly after, that Mr. 

 Pond told him thai he thought he had heard something about 

 an error in the Nautical Almanac of 1815 or 1816 (he be- 

 lieved). If Mr. Pond had not been told something about 

 this circumstance, is it likely he would have said he had 

 been previously informed of some error ? Dr. Kelly can 

 therefore say, that Mr. Pond was unacquainted with it, in 

 no other point of view than that the observations with 

 which this information was at first accompanied, were not 

 sufficient to impress a ready recollection of the circumstance. 

 But had Mr. Grooinbridge told Mr. Pond he should write 

 to Sir Jaseph Banks, and other members of the Board of 

 Longitude, about his discovery, I will engage to say Mr. 

 Pond would not have so easily forgot the subject of the 

 comiT)imicauon. It does not appear, however, that the 

 subject was so coinpletely obliterated from Mr. Pond's 

 memory, that he could not recall it ; for it appears that Dr. 

 Kelly's visit was on the 1 1th of September, and Mr. Pond's 

 communication to the Admiralty, on the 25lh ; on the 

 siaht of which Dr. Kelly might have recalled what Mr. Pond 

 had told him, that something had been previously pointed 

 out respect itig some error, and he would have directly in- 

 ferred from that communication to the Admiralty, the cir- 

 cumstance which Mr. Pond had told him was the one 

 in question, but which he at the lime alluded to did not 

 recollect. 1 cannot conceive it at all surprising that Mr. 

 Pond shoiild iiave forgotten what Mr. Groombridge had 

 said to him when Dr. Kelly made his visit, as Mr. Groom- 

 bridge ?a)3 his' communication on the subject in question 



was 



