November 9, 191 1] 



NATURE 



45 



the necessity for further inquiry, and suggested an inter- 

 departmental committee on which the Treasury, the Board 

 of Education, the Solar Physics Observatory, and the 

 Meteorological Office should be represented. 



The committee actually appointed consisted of three 

 persons who are or have been fellows of Trinity College, 

 with the addition of a distinguished honorary graduate of 

 the University of Cambridge. In the terms of reference a 

 condition is assumed that the sum spent in the future 

 upkeep at either place should be approximately the same 

 as that now expended in the present observatory. 



Out of the three scientific members of this committee, 

 two, the Astronomer Royal and Dr. Schuster, agreed that 

 the Cambridge site should be preferred, while one. Dr. 

 Glazebrook, the director of the National Physical Labora- 

 tory, dissented. 



In making a very careful examination of the report of 

 the departmental committee, together with the evidence 

 and appendices, it is really a matter of great difficulty to 

 understand, in the face of the evidence offered, how 

 Messrs. Dyson and Schuster arrived at their conclusion. 



The question of site may first be dealt with. The 

 superiority of the Fosterdovvn site is frankly acknowledged, 

 and evidence is given that some of the present dis- 

 advantageous conditions at Cambridge may be much worse 

 in the future. There is no guarantee that the land 

 surrounding the proposed Cambridge site will not be built 

 on, that tram-cars and other heavy traffic will not run 

 along the main road which bounds it. In short, there is 

 no guarantee that this part of the outskirts of Cambridge 

 will not in the near future be an important suburb of 

 Cambridge. 



One of the greatest objections to Cambridge is touched 

 on in cavalier fashion. Cambridge, like London, is lighted 

 by electricity ; and one of the points in favour of Foster- 

 down was that town glare at night would be abolished, 

 and that long-exposure photography on the spectra of stars 

 and nebulae, which is carried on under bad conditions at 

 present at South Kensington, would be rendered more 

 fruitful of results. 



As we learn from the solar physics report, this work 

 requires at present the attendance of three assistants on 

 every fine night. 



Q. 169. — Is there any interference owing to the town 

 light at the observatory in Cambridge? 



Answer. — I do not think anything that would affect solar 

 observations — 



is all we can find on this point ; and it does not suggest 

 that we are likely to have a continuance of the study of 

 the detailed chemistry of stellar spectra which for many 

 years past has formed part of the routine work of the 

 Solar Physics Observatory, and is not done elsewhere. 

 Town glare naturally does not affect solar observations, 

 because the sun can be observed only by day, while the 

 town is lit only by night. But it does very seriously affect 

 the astrophysical work of the Solar Physics Observatory, 

 which can be carried on only at night. If it is really 

 intended to put an end to a unique investigation of stellar 

 chemistry and physics, the question ought surely to be 

 debated on its merits, and not simply hustled out of sight. 

 There is reason to fear that this is the intention, not only 

 because of the non-recognition of anything beyond solar 

 observation, but also because it is to be gathered from the 

 representative who gave evidence for Cambridge that in 

 the Cambridge view it is not simply a question of trans- 

 ferring the observatory, but of dismissing its staff and 

 putting an end to it as it exists. 



Of the ten members of the staff, from Sir Norman 

 Lockyer downwards, not more than two are to be employed 

 (Q. 222), and even none of the existing staff may be of the 

 right " calibre " (Q. 139). 



The departmental committee apparently does not accept 

 this (Report, Section 15). 



It is imderstood that the Government desires to relieve 

 itself of the direct control of the Solar Physics Observatory, 

 but that at the same time it acknowledges the value of the 

 work done by that observatory by its willingness to con- 

 tinue the grant at present made for its maintenance. The 

 inducement offered by Cambridge University to transfer 

 iintrol to its hands is that the University undertakes to 

 ,'iovidp a suitable building for the work, which involves 



NO. 2193, VOL. 88] 



no very serious expenditure. If public money to the 

 amount of 3000/. a year is to be handed over to the Uni- 

 versity on account of certain specified work, then security 

 should be taken that the public shall get value for its 

 money, and that the specified work shall be efficiently 

 carried on. Otherwise the transaction will merely amount 

 to giving the University 3000L a year to spend as it pleases 

 in return for the erection of a building worth 200L or 

 250Z. a year. 



Now in order that the work shall be carried on efficiently 

 — that is to say, the astrophysical work, which, in spite 

 of its title, is the speciality of the Solar Physics Observa- 

 tory — it is not enough that a suitable building should be 

 erected, even though it be manned by persons of the " right 

 calibre." It is also necessary that the suitable building 

 should be upon a suitable site, and the only suitable site 

 for an observatory obviously is a site permitting its work 

 of observation and record to be performed in the best con- 

 ditions attainable. It will not be seriously argued by any 

 responsible person that Cambridge offers the best attainable 

 site for carrying on the astrophysical work of the Solar 

 Physics Observatory. That work involves long exposures 

 of sensitive plates to the light of particular stars. It is 

 necessary that the star should be followed with the utmost 

 accuracy in its diurnal motion, and it is obvious that vibra- 

 tion of the instruments due to heavy traffic in the vicinity 

 cannot conduce to sharpness of definition. If the star has 

 to be photographed through the illuminated haze that 

 hangs over every well-lighted town, another serious 

 difficulty is thrown in the way of the observer, and when 

 spectrographic complications are added the difficulties be- 

 come indefinitely more formidable. 



Thus, while it may be right that the Government should 

 rid itself of direct control of the Solar Phj'sics Observatory, 

 and while it may be right that Cambridge University 

 should assume control, it cannot be right that the Uni- 

 versity should erect the observatory in Cambridge. For 

 Cambridge is shown by the departmental committee itself 

 to be a bad observing station for this particular work, and 

 to be very likely to become progressively worse. A site 

 can easily be found free from the objections that attach to 

 Cambridge ; and if astrophysical work is to be carried on 

 at all with public money, the public have a right to demand 

 that such a site shall be chosen. In placing the observa- 

 tory at a distance from the University, Cambridge would 

 only be following the practice of other universities, such 

 as those of California and Chicago, which prosecute 

 analogous researches upon the principle that observatories 

 must be placed where the things to be observed can be 

 best observed. 



THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SPORT.' 



A S the third volume commences with hunting and 

 ^ *- concludes with racing", while it also comprises 

 articles on lawn tennis and polo, it will be obvious 

 that a large portion of its contents docs not come 

 within the purview of a journal like Nature. Never- 

 theless, there are numerous articles connected with 

 natural history which call for brief mention. As a 

 whole, these articles have been brought well up to 

 date, although in some instances there is a certain 

 amount of repetition, and occasionally discrepancies, 

 when two writers treat of the same subject from 

 different points of view. The illustrations^ arc 

 numerous, and for the most part good (as will be 

 evident from the one here reproduced), but the accom- 

 panying legends are in some instances not so full as 

 is desirable. On page 85, for instance, a doc and kid 

 are simplv lettered Himalayan Ibex, while there is 

 no indication to show whether the " Caucasian Ibex," 

 figured on the next page, is an' example of the western 

 or eastern tur. Misprints seem to be few. although 

 the specific name of the mule-deer is given as 

 ncmiontis in place of hemionus, while its alternative 



1 "The KpcycIop«;di.-i of Sport an'1 Games" Edited by the Earl of 

 Suffolk .ind Berkshire. Vol. iii., Hunting— Rac'ne. Pp. vii! + 448. 

 Vol. iv., Rackets to Ze'^ra. Pp vi!i + 47i. (London: W. Heinemann, 

 1911.) Price io.r. 6<i. net; abroad 12s, M. net. 



