(_To the Editor of the Mirror._)
Your article on the "Patrons of Astronomy," in the Mirror, No. 328,
brought to my recollection the following anecdote, for the truth of
which I can answer, having received it from Mr. Watson, well known as
the most celebrated private optical instrument maker in Europe, and at
the time living on intimate terms with the late Mr. Arnold, the most
eminent watchmaker of the day. When the late Sir William Herschel's
great telescope was first exhibited at Slough, among other scientific
men who went to see it was Mr. Arnold, who took Mr. W. with him. Neither
of them thought much of it, though it was praised by the multitude; as
it was, with its constructor, patronized by the late king and his
consort, for Herschel was a German, as you well know. A few astronomical
amateurs, who thought as Mr. Arnold did, proposed to Mr. Adams, of
Fleet-street, then astronomical instrument maker to the king, (by whom
Mr. Watson was employed,) to get Watson to make an instrument in
opposition to Herschel's. The order being given by Adams, Watson set
about the work, and had made some progress in the construction of the
instrument, when the circumstance found its way to the ears of royalty.
Orders were immediately sent to Mr. Adams to put a stop to the work, or
he should no longer be optician to the king. Watson did not proceed, but
could never learn the cause of the counter-order, till after a lapse of
several years, when a stranger called on him, in Valentine-place,
Blackfriars-road, and after putting several questions to him about his
instruments, related to him the cause of the counter-order; upon which
Mr. Watson showed him the progress he had made, and which I have also
seen. This story I heard related by Mr. Watson at a dinner party at Mr.
Arnold's, at Well Hall, near Eltham, where were also Mr. Dollonds, and
Mr. J. R. Arnold, the son.
A Constant Reader.
August, 24, 1828.
Our Correspondent will perceive that we have qualified some phrases of
his letter, but that all the facts appear.
The _Quarterly Review_, No. 75, from which our notice was taken, is
tolerably plain upon the lack of patronage towards astronomy in this
country, and seems disposed, in enumerating the state of astronomical
knowledge in civilized Europe, to place Great Britain beside Spain or
Turkey![4] We chance to know that one of the most able and enterprising
astronomers of the present day relinquished a lucrative profession, that
he might be more at leisure to indulge his philosophical pursuits; so
that, if patrons be wanting, this apathy does not appear to have
entirely destroyed the taste for the divine study. This gentleman, in
concert with another, ascertained, in the course of three years, the
position and apparent distances of 380 double and triple stars, the
result of about 10,000 individual measurements, and for their Memoir,
they received the astronomical prize of the French Academy of Sciences.
In the following year, the former individual communicated to the Royal
Society the apparent distances and positions of 458 double stars, of
which 160 had never before been observed.
[4] We feel as if it were a species of treason to record the
fact, that, within the wide range of the British islands, _there
is only one observatory, and scarcely one, supported by the
government_! We say scarcely one, because we believe that some
of the instruments in the observatory of Greenwich were
purchased out of the private funds of the Royal Society of
London. The observatories of Oxford, Cambridge, Dublin,
Edinburgh (except a grant of 2,000_l_.), Armagh, and Glasgow,
are all private establishments, to the support of which
government contributes nothing. The consequence of this is, that
many of them are in a state of comparative inactivity; and none
of them, but that of Dublin, have acquired any celebrity in the
astronomical world. Such, indeed, was the state of practical
astronomy in Scotland, that within these few years, a Danish
vessel, which arrived at Leith, could not obtain, even in
Edinburgh, the time of the day for the purpose of setting its
chronometers.--_Q. Rev._
Of course, our correspondent does not impeach the talent of HERSCHEL;
but it is lamentable to reflect that no attempt has been made to repeat
or extend the labours of that indefatigable astronomer.--ED.
* * * * *