( 66 1 ) 
5 POSTSCRIPT. 
& 
A S to the Obfervations of Dr. Hook y I muft own to 
you, that before Mr. Molyneux's Inftrument was 
ereded, I had no fmall Opinion of their Corrednefs ; 
the Length of his Telefcope and the Care he pretends 
to have taken in making them exad, having beenftrong 
Inducements with me to think them fo. And fince I 
have been convinced both from Mr. Molyneux' s Obfer* 
vations and my own, that the Do&or’s are really very 
far from being either exad or agreeable to the Phano- 
tnena \ I am greatly at a Lofs how to account for it. 
I cannot well conceive that an Inftrument of the Length 
of 36 Feet, conftruded in the Manner he defcribes his, 
could have been liable to an Error of near 30" (which 
was doubtlefs the Cafe) if redified with fo much Care 
as he reprefents. 
The Obfervations of Mr. Flamjleed of the differ- 
ent Diftances of the Pole Star from the Pole at differ- 
ent Times of the Year, which were through Miftake 
looked upon by fome as a Proof of the annual Paral- 
lax of it, feem to have been made with much greater 
Care than thofe of Dr. Hook . For though they do not 
all exadly correfpond with each other, yet from the 
whole Mr. Flamjieed concluded that the Star was 35'' 
40" or 45" nearer the Pole in c J)ecember than in May 
or July, and according to my Hypothefis it ought to 
appear 40" nearer in ^December than in June . The 
Agreement therefore of the Obfervations with the Hy- 
pothefis is greater than could reafonably be expeded, 
confidering the Radius ot the Inftrument, and the Man- 
ner in which it was conftruded. 
1 
