222 Prof. Rigaud, on Newton, Whiston, 
out our indignation against him. The description (in p. 294) 
seems to refer to the packet which was put into Newton’s 
hands in 1705, and in another place (No. 163) Flamsteed 
says that the seal was broken when the catalogue was returned 
to him in 1708; but neither in his personal narrative (p. 86) 
nor in his letter to Sharp (No. 135), does he make any such 
complaint as he probably would, if the circumstance had oc- 
curred at that time. The sextant observations were com- 
pletely printed in 1707, and the managers decided on the ex- 
pediency of immediately proceeding with the catalogue; they 
may, therefore, have then considered the time to have arrived 
when it was necessary to open and examine the document; 
but there are particulars which seem rather to indicate that 
they had not broken the seal till a later period. Whether 
they were right or wrong in the proposed arrangement of the 
publication does not affect the question of the fact, and it is 
clear that nearly four years having elapsed, during which they 
could not overcome Flamsteed’s opposition to their intentions, 
they determined to wait no longer for his concurrence. The 
Queen’s order to proceed with the publication appears to have 
been issued in the beginning of 1711, and this seems to be 
the probable time when the seal was broken. It is inconceiv- 
able that Newton would have pleaded the authority of the 
Queen’s order for what had taken place in 1708; and if he 
had, it is highly improbable that Flamsteed would have failed 
to notice so obvious a contradiction. By comparing Nos. 100, 
104, and 199, it may be seen that, when irritated, Flamsteed 
could forget what he had written, and in the hurry of 
vexation he has here made a confusion in his narrative. Surely, 
therefore, it would be unjust, without more complete know- 
ledge of particulars, tocondemn Sir Isaac Newton and all his 
friends on such an accusation, which is neither explained nor 
corroborated by any concurring evidence. In such a case it 
would be more fair to judge of the story by his established 
character, than to sacrifice his character for the establishment 
of the story. One thing, however, may be fairly presumed,— 
that the Queen’s order justified what was done; for Flamsteed 
in his reflections does not appeal from it, but confines his 
complaint to the authority not having been really obtained, 
or not till after the offence had been committed, (which latter 
supposition is introduced as if the first broader assertion was 
immediately accompanied by some doubts of its accuracy). 
In the reference to what Halley says on the thirty years of 
Flamsteed’s life, at Greenwich, the writer would have done 
well to have looked to the original. It is indeed said, in the 
preface, that during that time “ nihil prodierat”—-and nothing 
