Objections of M. de la lande. 147 
'the more to be expected, as I find, that even from among!! 
thofe the mod profoundly (killed, a demand has lately been 
made upon me to uphold what I have advanced, and to remove 
what feem to be dated as unfurmountable objections. 
Having Tome little time ago feen the Memoirs of the French 
.Academy for the year 1776, publifhed in 1779, I there find 
my paper on the Solar Spots has come under the notice of a 
member of that illudrious body, whofe name is judly held in 
great edeem by all adronomers, and to whom adronomv itfelf 
has many obligations. The author alluded to is M. de la 
lande. Though I fhould have been much flattered to have 
found my views fupported by an authority fo truly refpectabie, 
yet, even in his endeavours to oppofe me, I honour him as a 
philofopher who has taken fo much pains to vindicate what he 
doubtlefs believes to be juder opinions. In the mod perfect 
confidence of a generous indulgence on his part, and with 
equal attachments to philofophy and to truth, my prefent in- 
tention is very freely to offer what arguments occur to me in 
favour of the folar lpots being fuch as I have defcribed. 
Fird of all, it has been urged, as an objection of great 
weight, that theabfence of the umbra on one fide, when lpots 
are near the limb, as fo fully explained in my paper, is not 
-condant. As to the fad, the reader may there fee, that I was 
myfelf fufficiently aware of it, having dated three cafes from 
my own obfervations, when I did not perceive this change to 
take place. The rev. francis Wollaston, ll.b. f. r. s. is 
the only perfon who (in the Philofophical Tranffactions) has 
bedowed any remarks on my publication ; and though he with 
great candour acknowledges that, generally, the umbra changes 
in the manner I have determined, yet he exprefles a difficulty as 
U 2 to 
