TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, 1839-1841. 209 



astronomer royal, printed nothing of observations. Bradley and Bliss left manu- 

 scripts; but the right of the Government to them was disputed, and they were ulti- 

 mately printed by the University of Oxford. It was not till 1767, on Maskelyne'a 

 accession, that the King (George III), on the petition of the Royal Society, ordered 

 that the observations should be printed annually; and since that time there has 

 been no doubt that the observations are the property of the Government and are to 

 be printed annually. 



The board of visitors above alluded to existed without alteration (as I believe) till 

 1830; and it was by that board (as I imagine) that representations were made to the 

 Government which led to the purchase of instruments in Halley's time, to the regu- 

 lar printing of the observations in Maskelyne's time, etc. The president and council 

 of the Royal Society (or part of them), with a number of persons invited by them, 

 either fellows of the society or strangers, met once a year at the royal observatory, 

 inspected the instruments, and discussed the general business of the observatory. 

 They had, I believe, no power except to recommend measures to the executive. 

 The meeting was rather numerous. In 1830 the old board was abolished and a new 

 one appointed by name from the Royal and Astronomical societies. 1 Vacancies are 

 filled up by the president of that society in which the vacancies occur. This board 

 has no power to invite assessors; its powers as to making representations, etc., are 

 the same as those of the old board. On the first appointment of the new board 

 there was exhibited in it a rather vexatious spirit toward the then astronomer royal, 

 Mr. Pond. Since my appointment as astronomer royal the board has scarcely inter- 

 fered in anything, except in matters which I have myself suggested. 



The visitors receive no pay. Lately it has been ordered that their bare expenses 

 be paid. 



I have given a rather comprehensive answer to No. 1, touching upon the subjects 

 of other questions, and embracing points not at all alluded to in the questions, 

 because, probably, there is no other active institution whose history serves so well 

 to suggest the points to which attention ought to be given in founding a new institu- 

 tion of similar character, as well as the amount of the charges which, in future years, 

 may be required in all the branches of the institution. 



I omitted to mention that the astronomer royal's account of disbursements, and 

 bills for expenses of all kinds connected with the observatory, were formerly audited 

 by the board of visitors. This audit was found to be insufficient; and the accounts 

 are now transmitted, in the same way as those of any other department under the 

 admiralty, to the Government offices. 



2. For a plan of the building first erected, I refer again to Baily's "Account, etc.," 

 cited above. There were a small house, one large room above it, covering nearly 

 the whole hoase, with lofty windows on all sides, intended, I suppose, for gazing 

 astronomical observations (but quite useless for the purposes of modern astronomy), 

 a garden or lawn about 80 feet square, and a small low building in one corner of it, 

 in which Flamsteed's really useful instruments were placed. The place was very 

 small. The situation, in the middle of the royal park of Greenwich, has probably 

 prevented the necessity for inclosure so large as would elsewhere be required, inas- 

 much as it was impossible that houses could be built close to the inclosure. The 

 history in Halley's time is so defective that I am not certain whether the building, 

 which is to this time the principal observing building, was erected then or not, 

 but I should think that it was. It was certainly erected before 1750, when Bradley's 

 regular observations begin. It consists of a room about 20 feet square for the transit, 



1 With a few official persons, as the presidents of the two societies, two professors 

 of the University of Oxford, and two professors of the University of Cambridge, ex 

 officio; the whole number of the visitors being about 19. This fluctuates, because 

 all ex-presidents are members of the board. 

 H. Doc. 732 U 



