834 



• KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Fbr 17, 1882. 



phenoniono. In 1861, May T), lu> addrpssod anotlior com- 

 munication to tlic saino body, advocating for tin' ohsrrrn- 

 lion <;/' tlin transit of iHM'i ouli/ — a rfconnninmt nrr of 

 Antarctic stations. In 18C8 he made yet another communi- 

 cation, advocating tlie same views, and an active discussion 

 followed, in wliicli tlie Ilydrographer of tlie Adminiity, 

 Captain (now Sir (!.) Richards took part, and in wliicli it 

 was generally agreed liy the naval oflicials present tliat 

 Antarctic stations could, and should, be occupied, as sug- 

 gested, for observing the lat<'r transit. 



It chanced to be my duty at that time to write the 

 repoila of a.stroiiomi<al progress for the "Quarterly Journal 

 of Science," and for the " Popular Science Review ; " and 

 having the belief tiiat such reports should not be limited 

 to mere (juotations from tho.se who are assumed to 

 be authorities, but should involve a little independent 

 Inquiry, I began th(! investigation of the problem which I 

 then supposed that Sir (!. Airy had most fully and satis- 

 factorily dealt with. But I found his investigation to be 

 incorrect. A certain assumption at the beginning, which 

 had every appearance at first sight of being right, turned 

 out on closer inquiry to bo altogether wrong. To give an 

 idea how wrong it was, I need only point out that the 

 method deemed most suitable for the earlier transit turned 

 out to be the only method available (of the two in question) 

 for the second, while the method regarded as only available 

 for the second turned out to be far and away the best for 

 the first transit. 



After calling Sir G. Airy's attention to this matter in a 

 courteous letter (supposing, of course, that when once he 

 had noticed the error he would set it right himself), and 

 receiving from him (as on several other occasions) a reply 

 more curt than courteous, I set to work to complete my 

 investigation for puljlication, and I eventually communi- 

 cated it to the Astronomical Society. Its accuracy was 

 never questioned. Sir George Aiiy admitted in a letter 

 (by no means intended to say pleasant things) that it was 

 the most complete and accurate discussion of the transits 

 published up to that time. It was only open to one excep- 

 tion ; it was not official : and because it was in no sense my 

 duty to make this investigation (in other words, because 

 I was not paid for doing the work), some (chiefly minor 

 officials) fondly imagined that I had no right to make it.* 



Now, in this complete investigation of the matter, I was 

 able to demonstrate two points of great importance — 

 first, the utter inadequacy of the arrangements suggested 

 for the observation of the transit of IST-i ; and secondly, 

 the utter uselessness of the proposed Antarctic expeditions 

 for observing the transit of 1882. Thirdly — but scarcely 

 of less importance — I noted a region in British India, 

 including several of the best stations for observing the 



• Strangely erronoons ideas are very common about oflicial posi- 

 tion. A man is apiinintcd to an important oflico in order that he 

 may do certain work, for which he is to bo more or less handsomely 

 remunerated, oat of money jirovided by the tax-jmyers. If this 

 officer is at the head of a department, ho has, besides his salarv, 

 authority over all other oflTicials in that department. But many 

 seem to imagine that this authority extends to persons outside 

 official circles —an idea preposterous on the face of it ; for such 

 persons are in reality among the employers of such oflicials, paying 

 them to do certain work, and having a right (if they chance to 

 have the necessary knowledge) to inquire how the work is being 

 done. The trouble is, that while so many have the right, so few 

 have the knowledge. Those who have it, if they possess also 

 the time to do the work, have something more than the right- 

 it ia their duty to make the inquiry. Who else is going to do it ? 

 If — which is altogether unlikely— our present able and active 

 Astronomer Royal were grossly to neglect all the duties of his 

 office, who is there above hini in office who could indicate his 

 shortcomings ? and who is there below him in office who would 

 Ventura t*. Somebody outside of office must do the work. 



transit, and heretofore overlooked (because of the siiigularly 

 un.satisfact<^)ry metliod of mapping the obs'^rving districts 

 which Sir tJ. Airy had unluckily otlopted;. To these im- 

 portant matt«Ts 1 called attention more publicly than by 

 papers read before the Astronomical Society, vi/., in an 

 article which appeared in the S/n-rtotor oi February, 187.3. 

 My views were stoutly and skilfully support^nl by Sii 

 Ivlmund Beckett, in a paper which oppcared in the Timfn 

 of P'eb. 1.-J, 1873. 



Xote that in these papers it was shown (1) that a 

 number of northern stations where the whole transit of 

 1871 could be observed should be occupied, for which kind 

 of observation no prorinion "f nil /m,/ no for lu'ni niaih ; 

 (2) that no stations need be occupied for observing the 

 whole transit of 1882, and fHpeciriKi/ that the dangermit 

 Antarctic stntioiis could not jxixxihlij he occupied with 

 advanl/igc then (but it was noticed that if they can be occu- 

 pied at all, they should be occupied in 1874, to supplement 

 stations already provided for in the south, %\here, as it 

 happened, though whole-transit observations heA not been 

 intended, such observations could be made) ; and (.'}) that 

 the North-Indian region mentioned above should l>e 

 occupied. 



Government, of course, followed the customary official 

 course, — inviting the officials who.se judgment was oppugned 

 to say whether they were mistaken. Equally of coui-se, 

 those officials .said they had made no mistake, implying 

 even, by their tone, that officials never do, or can, make 

 mistakes. 



Sir G. Airy tried the same line with the Astronomical 

 Society. He pooh-poohed the notion that Siberian and 

 north Chinese stations could possibly be occupied — and a 

 fortnight later news came that American, Russian, and 

 German astronomers were to occupy these very regions. 

 He ridiculed the North Indian region, which he had over- 

 looked — and ^•ery soon after he had to provide for extra 

 stations in that very region. But he specially ridiculed 

 the suggested Antarctic expeditions (one of the islands — 

 St. Paul's — which I had recommended, was eventually 

 occupied by the French, and good work done there), as if 

 I had ever had any reason but his own advocacy of such 

 stations (ridiculous advocacy, he now asserted) for believing 

 that they could lie occupied. And of course, the very 

 officials who, when he had wanted the stations for 1882, 

 had urged no objections, now swallowed all they had before 

 said, and — greatly daring — said the very opposite. 



Just here, v:here I had gone icrong in foUoiring him and 

 believing in official utterances, u-a^ the one point ichere irhat 

 I had advocated was not carried out in every detail : and 

 just this point is all that Sir G. Airij chooses to notice h[ 

 the introduction to the volume be/ore us. He describes my 

 paper in the Spectator, and Sir E. Beckett's, in the llmei 

 (three columns), urging most important changes, which had 

 eventually to be adopted, as papers " strongly urging th« 

 adoption of Enderby Land (which, after careful considers 

 tion, I had rejected) for a southern station." As a mattei 

 of fact, Sir G. Airy never had rejected Enderby Land for 

 1874 : he had never thought of it ; lie had urged Antarctic 

 stations for 1882, and had only given them up after I had 

 shown that such stations, useful enough astronomically 

 in 1874, would be of no adequate value in 1882. 

 He gave up Antarctic stations simply because, if thej 

 had been occupied at all, they must (after what I had 

 shown) have been occupied for a purpose which he hac 

 himself overlooked. / have not a shadow of a doubt, a/lei 

 care/'ullt/ studying u-hat teas said by Airy, Richards. 

 Ommanney, Davis, and Stone, on Dec. 11, 1868, thai but 

 for my demonstration of the astronomical uselessness oj 

 Antarctic stations in 1882, we should have had, be/or* nofj 



