224 Prof. Rigaud, on a Note in the Quarterly Review. 
ject of honourable ambition, but those who accuse Halley of 
the endeavours to supplant his predecessor, are bound to bring 
forward direct facts, not surmises, in support of the charge. 
With such an object, it was the more disinterested in him to 
hold that the salary ought not to be augmented. He may 
have done so in Flamsteed’s time, but I am not acquainted 
with the authority for it. I have always heard that the objec- 
tion was made by him to Queen Caroline, when she visited 
the Observatory, and expressed a wish for the inadequate 
payment being increased. From a document in the British 
Museum it is clear that this could not have taken place before 
September 1729. Halley, then, for nearly ten years conti- 
nued himself to receive only the original “ pitiful salary” ; 
the report was erroneous, which Crosthwait heard, of his 
having in 1728 got an addition of 100/. per annum (No. 
279.); and after all, he only obtained the further pay of the rank 
which he had held in the navy. 
There are some particulars respecting Halley’s observations 
which ought to be added to the writer’s account, because they 
bear immediately on the present question. It was on the 2nd 
of March 1727 that Sir Isaac Newton reminded the Council of 
the Royal Society that they had neglected their duty by not 
having of late demanded, in obedience to the Queen’s order, 
the fair copy of the annual observations. We see, therefore, 
that Newton’s earnestness on this point did not originate in 
any personal feeling against Flamsteed, and the minute shows 
that he took the opportunity of Halley’s being present to make 
the representation. ‘The whole is given by Mr. Baily (in the 
Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. viii. p. 188.), 
and he adds, * It is worthy of remark, that this was the last 
meeting of the Royal Society at which Sir Isaac Newton was 
present, as he died on the 20th of the same month.” It is not 
indeed improbable that his death was hastened by this exer- 
tion of the good old man in the execution of what he consi- 
dered to be a duty. Hearne says, in one of his memorandum 
books, ‘Some time before he died, a great quarrel happened be- 
tween him and Dr. Halley.......This ’tis thought so much 
discomposed Sir Isaac as to hasten his end.” Sir David 
Brewster, in his Life of Newton, has alluded (p. 339) to this 
circumstance, but he does not seem to have noticed the time 
to which it refers. Halley, it must be admitted, in this case 
was wrong. His withholding the required documents and 
taking up Flamsteed’s idea of the observations being private 
property were possibly, after Newton’s death, never interfered 
with; and by the tacit acquiescence of the Government, not 
only the rights of the Crown were virtually abandoned, but the 
