SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY. 
311 
The Sadler- Smyth controversy . — The question to which we adverted in our 
last summary has not been dealt with precisely as the friends of the late 
Admiral Smyth could have wished. Instead of an examination of the 
singular instances of discrepancy from fact and agreement with the errors of 
others noticed by Messrs. Burnham and Sadler, which could not but have re- 
sulted either in clearing Admiral Smyth’s memory from all suspicion, or else in 
showing that' unfortunately the doubts which seem to be suggested by 
Mr. Sadler’s recent paper were well founded, the matter has been simply 
dropped, the council of the Astronomical Society publishing a statement 
implying their regret that they ever allowed it to be taken up. A tone was 
adopted in discussing the matter which implied further, that whatever cor- 
rections may be made as to scientific statements, none which would suggest 
the possibility of fraud should ever be published. It was understood that 
this was specially urged by the Astronomer Royal, who being personally in- 
terested in the matter (not simply as a friend of Admiral Smyth’s, but as 
having practically pledged himself to the value of Smyth’s observations — 
now admitted to be almost valueless as a series) might perhaps with better 
taste have remained silent. But apart from this it was rather singular to 
hear the author of the most virulent personal attack recorded in the history 
of astronomy, that, namely, in which Father Hell was not only accused of 
bad and careless observation, but directly charged with personal fraud, 
adopting a tone which perhaps might have seemed correct enough, if rather 
affected, in the case of one who had never offended against propriety in such 
matters. We are glad, however, to find that Mr. Burnham emphatically 
accepts the interpretation placed by Mr. Proctor on the words “ stupendous 
fraud,” applied by Mr. Burnham to Admiral Smyth’s work. He cannot 
understand, he says, how this could ever have been understood to imply 
personal fraud on the admiral’s part ; but herein we cannot quite agree with 
him, for in England that would be the natural interpretation of such an ex- 
pression. But every one acquainted with American modes of expression, 
knew that the word “fraud,” as used by Mr. Burnham, did not necessarily 
or even probably imply any personal reflection on the admiral, but simply 
indicated that his book was disappointing and unsatisfactory. 
Spectrum of Brorserts Comet . — The following observations of this interest- 
ing object have been made at Greenwich, and are communicated by the 
Astronomer Royal. The dispersion used was that of one compound “ half- 
prism,” equivalents four flint prisms of 60° (20° from A to h), with a power 
of 12 on the viewing telescope. The spectroscope was mounted on the 
Great Equatorial. 
The spectrum consists of the three usual cometary bands, corresponding 
to the three principal bands of the second spectrum of carbon, and does not 
present the anomalous appearance found by Dr. Huggins in 1868. The 
bands were compared on several evenings with those shown by a vacuum 
tube containing vapour of alcohol at a pressure of 1*2 m.m., and the coinci- 
dence appeared sensibly perfect. 
The position of the brighest comet-band (in the green) was measured with 
Hilger’s bright line micrometer on two evenings, April 19 and 28, by Mr. 
Maunder ; on other occasions it was compared with the corresponding car- 
bon-band indirectly by means of a movable bar in the eyepiece, 30 tenth- 
