Page:History of the Royal Astronomical Society (1923).djvu/64

 48 HISTORY OF THE [1820-30 ber and elected in January ; and the list of Associates printed on 1821 February 9 thus contains nine names : Jean Bapt Biot, Paris. William Olbers, Bremen. Alexis Bouvard, Paris. Peter Slawinski, Wilna. John B. J. Delafnbre, Paris. J. D. Vallot, Dijon. Chas. F. Gauss, Gottingen. Hen John Walbeck, Abo. C. Louis Harding, Gottingen. It is possible that the presence of Slawinski in England at the time of the original meeting, and his presence among the fourteen who met on January 12, may have suggested the status of Associate Members ; but it will be noted that no distinction is drawn between his name and the others in the Minutes of January 12 and those of February 8 ; the numeration continues in this sense. APPENDIX TO DECADE 1820-30 (Chapter I) (i) Although the project of this History has been kept in mind for several years in order to make as complete a research as possible, it is inevitable that some references should only be discovered just too late. After the MS. had been sent to the printer Miss Herschel kindly sent me a scrap of a letter from Sheepshanks to Sir John Herschel. Judging by another scrap, which implores Sir John to burn the letter (of which accordingly little more survives beyond this injunction), the remainder of the letter below was probably destroyed, including the date ; but it was almost certainly written early in 1848, when Sheepshanks must have been writing the obituary notice of Pearson, printed in M.N. 8, 69. The letter and the notice shed light on one another, and the letter is valuable as emphasising the difficulty that was found, less than thirty years after the foundation, in recovering the exact details of our early history. Pearson and Baily were both dead, and they alone appear to have known the facts. Sheepshanks apparently took great pains to ascertain them, and might have hoped to get information from Sir John Herschel, if from anyone, but apparently the attempt failed. The following is the portion of the letter referred to : . . . obedient of slaves, it is most conspicuously seen when I am ordered to do what I like. Seriously I think all these proposals are good so far as they go. I should object exceedingly to stepping out of our proper business, but I see no harm in a modest suggestion which binds the advised person to nothing, and which is so indirect that it need not be heeded except by a willing person. I am not sure whether the reticentia of good and sensible men is not the cause of much of the mischief done by charlatans. We blame people for being humbugged, without considering that humbug has been the