206 HISTORY OF THE [1870-80 incorrect." This paper was immediately followed by Mr. Knobel's " Notes on a paper entitled ' An Examination of the Double Star Measures of the Bedford Catalogue, by S. W. Burnham.' " Mr. Knobel had examined Smyth's original observing books belonging to our Society, and also the Spherical Crystal Micrometer with which a great many of Smyth's measures of position angles were made, and which was now in the possession of the Astronomer Royal. The principal results found were : 1. Of the 150 objects re-observed by Burnham, 82 per cent, of the distances had weight one assigned to them by Smyth, which according to his own testimony represented " nearly worthless- ness." But these rough estimates, instead of being given as, for instance, 2^' or i J', were printed as I5o"-o or 75"-o, which was very misleading. 2. Position angles were measured by pointing the double image of A in the direction of B, and as the axis of the spherical crystal could be revolved freely round the circle in either direction, two readings might be obtained for every position angle, and this was a fruitful source of error and confusion, which fully accounts for Smyth's apparent dependence on the results of his predecessors. Mr. Knobel had thus completely succeeded in vindicating Smyth's character. The Gold Medal was again not presented in 1880 February. Huggins was chosen as the recipient at the Council meeting in 1879 December, but the result was not confirmed with the requisite majority at the January meeting. Several other names had been proposed at the November meeting. Airy did not attend the meet- ing in December, when the claims of the nominees were discussed and voted on, but he sent his reasoned opinion on each to the President, Lord Lindsay. He supported Huggins wholeheartedly, because though he was not the original suggestor of the idea he was practically the inventor of the process for determining the velocity of stars in the line of sight, and " has arrived, and has shown other persons how to arrive, at most striking and important cosmical results." The action of the Council was therefore in accordance with Airy's views in selecting Huggins. But apparently some of the members thought that they were being dictated to and were asked to bow to authority, and they therefore combined to frustrate the decision taken in December, as stated. In consequence of this, feeling again ran high, and the election of Officers and Council in February was again a contested one. Circulars and rival balloting lists were issued, among others by Professor Pritchard, not without some success.
