SECOND REPORT—1832. 
lished elsewhere. This, I think, is unfortunate ; for I cannot 
consider the Greenwich transits of Polaris (observed in general 
on only one wire,) to be very accurate. This coefficient, how¬ 
ever, has been adopted by Bessel and all the German astro¬ 
nomers in every subsequent investigation that I know. (Dr. 
Brinkley’s sidereal investigations, and Cacciatore’s investiga¬ 
tions from the obliquity of the ecliptic in different years, agree 
in giving something very near 9 //# 3 for the coefficient.) In the 
Dorpat Observations for 1822, and the Milan Epliemeris for 
1819, &c. are many observed right ascensions of Polaris, un¬ 
dertaken with the same object ; and I have observed about 
400 with much care. 
In the Berlin Memoirs for 1818 and 1819, Bessel published 
a very valuable paper on the right ascension of Maskelyne’s 
36 stars, from observations with a transit by Dollond and a 
circle by Cary. This memoir may be cited as a model for all 
succeeding investigations of the same kind. In the volume for 
1825 he published another paper on the same subject, the re¬ 
sults being founded on live years’ observations with Reichen- 
bach’s circle. 
In the Konigsberg Observations for 1821 and 1822 appeared 
a number of observations made by Bessel for ascertaining the 
amount of refraction near the horizon. They consisted of ob¬ 
servations of stars which when on the meridan passed so near 
to the zenith that there could be little uncertainty about their 
absolute places. From these observations, and from observa¬ 
tions of fifty-nine circumpolar stars on the meridian above and 
below the pole, he formed a new table of refractions, differing 
a little from that given in the Fundamenta. This table he ap¬ 
plied (amongst other things,) to the solution of a curious diffi¬ 
culty. Every astronomer (Mr. Groombridge excepted), who 
had observed the sun’s zenith-distance at the solstices, had 
deduced from the summer solstice a greater obliquity than from 
the winter solstice. It was impossible that this could arise 
from any planetary perturbation ; and several hypotheses were 
invented to explain it. Piazzi ( Memorie della Societa lialiana , 
1804,) conceived that solar refraction might depend on some¬ 
thing besides the barometer and thermometer, as for instance 
on the electricity of the air, and that the pecular state of the 
air during the prevalence of the sirocco might affect it. Le¬ 
gendre ascribed it to something like nutation of the earth. 
Gibers thought that the sun’s centre of figure might possibly 
not coincide with its centre of attraction. The general belief, 
however, was that it depended upon some fault in the tables of 
refraction, or the method of using them. Now Bessel showed 
