March 15, 1877] 



NATURE 



427 



an old observer, recommend Professor Nichol, as a young 

 observer, to undertake less and he will do more." 



We have much pleasure in finding that we agree so 

 generally with Sir G. Airy's views. We do not think, 

 however, that it was desirable to place a meteorological 

 observatory in Greenwich Park. We have already said 

 why we do not think it was necessary, or even advan- 

 tageous to the sciences, that both magnetism and me- 

 teorology should be placed under the same direction as the 

 National Astronomical Observatory. Indeed the Astro- 

 nomer-Royal has allowed (in his evidence) for meteoro- 

 logy, what is well known to scientific men all over the world 

 for magnetism, that his well-intentioned devotion to these 

 subjects has not been repaid by the results he has ob- 

 tained. 



Sir G. Airy thinks the existence of the Kew Observa- 

 tory unnecessary (1,028) ; that they can furnish observa- 

 tions " at Greenwich as good or better, but quite as good 

 certainly" (995). We quite agree that Kew and Green- 

 wich are not both necessary, but it will be seen that we 

 vould greatly prefer to see magnetism and meteorology 

 relegated elsewhere (we do not admire the position of 

 Kew). With reference to the comparative value of the 

 observations made at the two observatories, it has always 

 been to us a matter of surprise that with two observa- 

 tories within a few miles of each other, no comprehensive, 

 strictly accurate, and scientific comparisons of the obser- 

 vations, magnetical and meteorological, made in them, 

 should have been made and published. We cannot tell 

 how far they agree or disagree. One might at least have 

 been used as an aid to the other ; if there are differences, 

 such a comparison would have led to a search for their 

 causes, and errors might thus have been corrected. It 

 would be a very disagreeable matter if, when compared, 

 instruments at the two observatories should be found not 

 to go together as well as Admiral Fitzroy's weather-glass 

 and an aneroid barometer. 



A great national observatory for the prosecution of a 

 branch of science of so much practical importance as 

 meteorology should not be merely observational, but also 

 experimental. Let us take one of the simplest cases, one 

 brought forward before the Committee : How should we 

 place a thermometer? Sir G. Airy says (984) : "The 

 mere observation of getting the temperature of the air is 

 one of the most difficult things I know. If you are on 

 the north side of a building within some distance you get 

 it too low ; if you are on the south side you get it too 

 high, and if you are close to the ground you get some- 

 thing different." This is all perfectly exact ; and we may 

 add, if you keep the thermometer in one place probably 

 the sun will shine on the ground near it differently at 

 different hours of the day and in different months of the 

 year, so that there is a varying source of error in the 

 same place. The Astronomer-Royal is also asked if he 

 can estimate the probable difference between a thermo- 

 meter at four feet and forty feet above the ground (987), 

 but he cannot ; and at what height a thermometer should 

 be placed, but he replies only that four feet is the usual 

 height. 



We mention these questions to show that nearly every- 

 thing has as yet to be placed on a scientific footing. We 

 do not think four feet is a good height, and agree with the 

 Astronomer-Royal that thermometers have been placed 



too near the ground, where they have been affected by 

 many local differences which would have been to a great 

 extent avoided at a greater height. Of course obser- 

 vations may be made at any height from the soil when 

 special questions are in view. Similar difficulties exist 

 for other instruments, and it is certain that we are 

 making masses of observations which might have been 

 much more valuable to science had experiments of the 

 class indicated been made in the first instance. In such an 

 observatory, also, there is a whole series of physical ex- 

 periments which could and should be performed, indepen- 

 dently of those which should more properly be placed in 

 the hands of specialists. 



In the Report of the Committee, we find the following 

 (Art. 8) : — " As regards the first, although it may be desir- 

 able at some future time to create a permanent meteoro- 

 logical establishment on some such footing as that of the 

 Astronomical Observatory at Greenwich, with an officer of 

 scientific eminence at its head, we think that matters are 

 scarcely ripe for such a step at present." We have been 

 in some cases satisfied with the report, but here, if we 

 understand the meaning of the word "ripe," we must 

 differ. We believe that matters have been ripe any time 

 the last forty years ; but we hope to return to this subject 

 on another occasion. 



The Report of the Committee is all that could probably 

 be expected with the evidence before it. There are at 

 present two purely scientific works that should be carried 

 forward. Something should be done with the observations 

 of the seven observatories, and much should be done to 

 encourage research in connection with meteorological 

 questions generally. It should not be imagined that an 

 investigation with reference to some very small variation 

 can have no practical value, that is to say, that the prac- 

 tical results which may flow from it can be measured by 

 the amount of the variation. Nor should it be supposed 

 that any question which touches on atmospheric varia- 

 tions should be neglected, in this respect, because the 

 relation may appear remote. The movements of the 

 sun's envelopes, the spots, the protuberances ; the moon's 

 possible action on solar emanations may all appear un- 

 connected with our calms or our storms, and may yet all 

 have a relation to both. 



To conclude, we object to a cumulation of duties on 

 one head, by which things are not only not well done, 

 but through which others are prevented from doing them 

 well. We think centralisation hurtful to science, and we 

 regret that 1,000/. a-year has not been granted to Scot- 

 land, by which a healthy rivalry would have been gained. 



We have given most place to Sir G. Airy's testimony 

 because his is really the most important, but we cannot 

 help inquiring why so few directors of observatories and 

 meteorologists were examined. Dr. Lloyd, who has 

 directed a magnetical and meteorological observatory for 

 many years ; Prof. Balfour Stewart, once secretary to the 

 Meteorological Committee and director of the Kew Ob- 

 servatory ; Mr. J. A. Broun, who has directed observa- 

 tories in Scotland and in India ; the Rev. Mr. Main 

 director of the Radcliffe Observatory ; Prof. Piazzi Smyth, 

 director of the Edinburgh Observatory ; all of whom have 

 been occupied with meteorological investigation, are all 

 wanting, and they are all men who might have said some- 

 thing worth hearing on what should be done. 



