Page:History of the Royal Astronomical Society (1923).djvu/230

 202 HISTORY OF THE [1870-80 of the charge. In the Bedford Catalogue the position, angle, and distance of the companion of y Persei are given as 226-o, 55 "-o. Mr. Burnham found the position-angle to be 324-!, and Mr. Sadler suggested that Smyth had " followed " Sir John HerschePs position-angle of 224 -9, which is known to be a mis- print. Similarly, Smyth gives the position-angle of the companion of 8 Cancri as i63-o, whereas later observers find 124 or 114, and the charge was made that Smyth copied a fallacious measure of Sir John Herschel's, 160. Mr. Sadler's paper consisted of a large collection of such examples, preceded by an introduction of criticism somewhat offensively worded. Mr. Sadler quoted from a letter by Mr. Burnham : " No publication of original observations in this or any other language can be named which contains so many serious errors. . . . There is no theory which will account for the many serious discrepancies. The measures generally agree substantially with those which are given from prior observers, but this agreement is kept up just the same where the earlier measures were all wrong." And then Mr. Sadler goes on in his own words : " As far as I am aware there is one catalogue only, and that not an original one, which surpasses the Bedford Catalogue in inaccuracy, and that Catalogue is the ' Reference Catalogue of Multiple and Double Stars,' " forming volume 40 of the Memoirs. This Reference Catalogue was one edited for the Society by the Rev. R. Main and Professor Pritchard from a manuscript left by Sir John Herschel. Mr. Sadler pointed out no specific mistakes in this catalogue, but merely made the general charge as above. Admiral Smyth had received the Gold Medal of the Society in 1845 for the publication of his " Cycle," the presentation having been made by Airy ; and Mr. Sadler called attention to what he called the cautious language used by the Astronomer Royal when speaking of the micrometrical measures. Airy's attention was drawn to the apparently slanderous state- ments by Mr. C. G. Talmage, who received the following letter in reply : 1879 February 18. I remember the award of the Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society to Captain Smyth, and my address on that occasion. I had great confidence in Captain Smyth's observations, but in regard to the award of the Medal, I thought that unusual circum- stances required caution. I. The award to a printed book, in many respects a mere catalogue, was unusual. 2. The language of the book is not satisfactory to strangers. 3. Captain Smyth was a member of the Council, and I know well that none of the voters for the Medal that is co-fellows of Captain Smyth had ever looked at the book.