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



are we told by what means it is to be come at. By a re- 

 ference to the Nautical Almanac of 1795, 1 find the obli- 

 quitv here civen is the apparent obliquity for the 1st of 

 April, and il found opposite the first page of that Almanac. 



Although the obliquity of the ecliptic is used in both 

 parts of the example, yet in computing the sun's declina- 

 tion in the first part of that example it is called the sun's 

 greatest declination. The inference from which would be, 

 thai the sun's ejreatest declination was always equal to the 

 obliquity of the~ec!iptic, notwithstanding that in the same 

 vear the difference in the apparent obliquity of the ecliptic 

 is not less than 2'',4. The plain state of the fact is, that 

 Dr. Kelly, in this boasted work on Spherics, has given a 

 bungled example in a simple case of right-angled sphe- 

 rical trigonometry, the data'for which he has taken from 

 the Nautical Almanac; and which he now declares 

 to be " the only publication he knows of, where the 

 calculations of the coluums of the Nautical Almanac are 

 particularly exemplified." On the modesty of this de- 

 claration I leave the reader to form his own opinion, re- 

 marking only that, if it be correct, Dr. Kelly's acquaintance 

 with publications of this nature is not very extensive. 



I now come to the conclusion of the Doctor's letter; and 

 upon it I cannot help remarking, that it appears to me the 

 hicrhest piece of illiberality of sentiment towards Mr. Pond, 

 that I have ever seen written perhaps against any man ; for, 

 if it does not directly, it does indirectly, cliallenge him with 

 havino" employed Mr. Groombridge and myseU, whom he Ts 

 pleased to consider as partners, to write in defence of his 

 proceedings, in our reply to the statements contained in the 

 Philosophical Magazine. The Doctor says, " And thus, sir, 

 the question might have remained at rest had not his (Mr. 

 Pond's) mistaken friends imprudently interfered," And 

 ao-aiu he says, " I want neither auxiliaries nor substitutes, 

 nor shall I hereafter reply to any." 



Here is an insinuation founded on mere chimerical sup- 

 position, without the most distant facts or circumstance 

 that could possibly lead to such a conclusion. " Facts, 

 indeed, speak for themselves." 



With respect to myself, 1 had neither seen Mr. Pond nor 

 received any letter from him for six months before the ap- 

 pearance of the statements I gave in the Philosopliical Ma- 

 gazine; and as a proof that Mr. Pond was totally ignorant of 

 what I had done, I shall now publish, by his permission, 

 a letter he sent me some time after my letter in the Philoso- 

 phical 



