of ascertaining the Magnitude of small celestial Bodies. g] 
« so that the new star may be called a small one of the 
“ 8th.” 
With the 10-feet reflector, power 496,3, I viewed it atten- 
tively, and comparing it with g and h, Fig. 3, could find no 
diiference in the appearance but what might be owing to its 
being a larger star. 
By way of putting this to a trial, I changed the power to 
879,4, but could not find that it magnified the new one more 
than it did the stars g and h. 
“ I cannot perceive any disk ; its apparent magnitude with 
“ this power is greater than that of the star g, and also a very 
“ little greater than that of h; but in the finder, and the night- 
“ glass g is considerably smaller than the new star, and h is 
“ also a very little smaller.” 
I compared it now with a star which in the finder appeared 
to be a very little larger ; and in the telescope with 879,4 t ^ ie 
apparent magnitude of this star was also larger than that of 
the new one. 
“ As far as I can judge without seeing the asteroids of Mr. 
“ PiAzzr and Dr. Olbers at the same time with Mr. Harding's, 
“ the last must be at least as small as the smallest of the 
“ former, which is that of Dr. Olbers.” 
“ The star k, Fig. 1, observed Sept. 24, is wanting, and was 
“ therefore the object I was in search of, which by computation 
“ must have been that day in the place where I saw it.” 
“ The new star being now in the meridian with all those to 
“ which I am comparing it, and the air at this altitude being 
“ very clear, I still find appearances as before described : the 
“ new object cannot be distinguished from the stars by mag- 
w nifying power, so that this celestial body is a true asteroid.” 
MDCCCV, I 
