... early intentions were to primarily educate the sons of middle class clergy and to emphasise the teachings of the Anglican faith as its core priority.

The prominence which Dr T J J See in a recent paper published in the Monthly Notices gave to the Waterston-Dubois method of solving Kepler's Equation makes it appear likely that another graphical method may have some interest. The question of authorship to which that paper gave rise causes hesitation in claiming originality; but the method which is here described has not, so far as I am aware, been published previously.

The interesting papers which have been published recently on the subject of the aberration of parabolic mirrors, have only considered the rays which are incident in a plane passing through the axis of the mirror. It is proposed here to find the approximate form of the star-image in the focal plane, and to estimate the distribution of intensity.

In the numerous methods which have been employed in the determination of the orbits of double stars, it is natural, on account of the comparatively course nature of the observations, that much use has been made of graphical devices. These for the most part are the "trial and error" kind. T N Thiele and J M Wilson, however, have given direct geometrical constructions by which the relations between the apparent and the real orbit are exhibited, and the former has made practical use of his method. It is my object here to deduce these relations from a consideration of the projective properties of the ellipse, and to show how the geometrical elements of the orbit may be determined by a tolerably simple construction.

... when the post of second assistant at the University Observatory was offered him, he faced the difficulties of living on a very small salary in order to have more time for work at the science to which he was devoted.

As a young and ambitious astronomer Plummer early realised the immense potentialities of spectroscopy, and his year's stay in America gave him the much-prized opportunity of making himself conversant with the large-scale developments then proceeding rapidly in the great American Observatories.

The paper in which Professor Pearson has discussed some of the statistical relationships to which different classes of variable stars may be subject has natural claims to our respectful attention. Much work in modern astronomy, whether expressly inspired by the evolutional view or not, is of the nature of classification. Professor Pearson has done so much to provide the necessary theoretical basis for studying the correlation of classified characters that we should be grateful to him for dealing with some of the problems connected with variable stars which are of this kind, and thereby drawing more general attention to a branch of astrophysics which is of the greatest interest and importance.

At the same time it seems to me that some of Professor Pearson's results stand in need of serious qualification, being open to a very simple line of criticism which he has apparently overlooked. If this be conceded, these results must lose much of their value, and no very great confidence can be placed in certain ulterior speculations which have been based on them. This may be thought a harsh judgment. But if it can be shown that in this instance Professor Pearson, possibly misled by a certain want of familiarity with the subject of variable stars, has made a not altogether judicious use of his own machinery, it will surely be better to vindicate the general methods, even at the expense, if need be, of the particular results.

Perhaps an example will serve to explain, if not to justify, the feeling that such a critical attitude is necessary. In the case of long period variables, Professor Pearson finds a correlation between the light range and the maximum light of seventy-nine stars which is a little short of unity (.9996). Now if this means anything at all, it should mean that the light range is almost rigorously a linear function of the maximum light. But if this be so, a similar relation ought to hold between the maximum light and the minimum light. Now this is not so.

... he devised elegant mathematical formulae giving the relation between the space-distribution of the cluster-stars and their two-dimensional distribution on photographs.

The appointment of Mr H C Plummer to the position of Royal Astronomer of Ireland is a well-deserved recognition of much steady work of a high class during the last decade. He has already published fifty-one papers on astronomical and allied subjects. Some of these are, of course, only brief notes on points of passing interest, but others show great power of getting to fundamental principles. Such was his essay on the Principle of Relativity, and again his paper on the Structure of Globular Clusters of Stars. A recent attack on the modern problem of stellar movements and distances has already produced results of remarkable interest and promises more in the future. We should have to go back to the eighteenth century to find a comparable instance of success in an Oxford astronomer.

The Dublin Professorship dates from the year 1783, and takes its name from Francis Andrews, a Fellow of Dublin University, who bequeathed a sum of £3000 and an annual income to build and endow an astronomical observatory in the University. In 1792 letters patent were issued (32 George III., A.D. 1792), in which it is recited that "there shall be for ever hereafter a Professor of Astronomy on the foundation of Dr Andrews, to be called and known by the name of the Royal Astronomer of Ireland." Mr Plummer is, therefore, Royal Astronomer of, not Astronomer Royal for, as some announcements have given the title, and by virtue of his office he is Director of the Observatory at Dunsink.

The names of the holders of the office from its foundation are Ussher, Brinkley (a mathematician and an astronomer who was Andrews Professor for thirty-six years, and afterwards Bishop of Cloyne), Sir William Rowan Hamilton (a brilliant mathematician, whose name is associated with the invention of the calculus of Quaternions, but was certainly not a working astronomer), Dr Brünnow (who as certainly was), Sir Robert Ball (happily still with us, who has not only delighted many audiences and many readers, but has also shown his genius in recondite mathematical science), Dr Arthur Rambaut (now Radcliffe Observer at Oxford), the late Professor Joly, and Dr Whittaker, the last two being renowned for their connection with mathematical physics. It will be seen from the list that the post has been as much associated with mathematics as with astronomy. Mr Plummer's tastes incline in both directions.

There has long been a need for a general book on celestial mechanics on a smaller scale and at a more accessible price than the standard work of Tisserand, and Prof Plummer's recent publication is a very successful effort to satisfy that need.

Good introductory text-books on mechanics are rare. Where a teacher is available the book is not the most important matter. For a student reading by himself a good book is absolutely essential. This one can be recommended.

Every young mathematician of real talent whom I have known has been faithful to mathematics, and not from lack of ambition but from abundance of it; they have all recognised that there, if anywhere, lay the road to a life of any distinction.

The question naturally arises whether it is better to seek fame as a mathematician or to serve one's day and generation in some other way. Whether it is better to rectify the cycloid or to build St Paul's Cathedral? The choice comes to few, but Professor Hardy's answer is not altogether convincing. If today the choice seems to be made easily the explanation lies near at hand in two facts. In the first place, given the requisite ability of a special kind, the path of the mathematician through scholarships and fellowships is ridiculous in its simplicity and it leads automatically to its end. In the second place before we are impressed by the small number of desertions it may be well to ask, what are the opportunities and the temptations to desert? At the present day they seem to be negligible, and it is possible that great talents capable of serving the interests of society in manifold ways are confined within too narrow a track.

This is not the first time that we have met outside our own apartments, for the first meetings of our Society (in 1820) were held in the house of the Geological Society in Bedford Street. But it must be many years since an Ordinary Meeting has been held elsewhere than in our own premises. For the more ample accommodation we are enjoying on the present occasion we are indebted to the Royal Society, and it is my first duty to express on your behalf our gratitude and appreciation for this act of neighbourly hospitality.

The award of the Gold Medal is a practice which we have observed annually almost without intermission for more than a century. Year by year it has given us the privilege of paying tribute to some individual work which we agree in thinking of outstanding importance to astronomy. More than that, it has been frequently associated in recent years with the opportunity of hearing an account of this work from the lips of the Medallist himself. Unhappily in the present year there is no prospect of Dr Hubble making the journey from California. But though we are debarred from welcoming him in person, we are not debarred from adding his name to the list of those whom our Society has delighted to honour in the past.

For the first time for many years it has appeared to the Council inexpedient to award the Gold Medal of the Society. To justify this decision it is not difficult to find a good and sufficient reason. The value of the award from year to year depends in a large measure on one condition, that the choice is world-wide and free from bias. Can that freedom be said to exist today? Even though our impartiality were above suspicion, freedom of communication with many countries has been lost. In these circumstances the Fellows will understand the action of Council in making no grant of the Medal.

Since there is no Medallist, your President cannot make his work the text of a presidential address. Whether there shall be a George Darwin Lecture later in the year is an independent question, which will be carefully considered. In the meantime a retiring President might be allowed to fold his tent "like the Arabs, and as silently steal away." But it has been represented to me that even in these sombre days an address is expected. It is a tradition, and as such it is not to be lightly disturbed by passing events however grave. Therefore it only remains to choose a subject, and for that we may recall some of those events which have occurred in the development of modern astronomical instruments, and especially in the evolution of that extremely interesting form, the tower telescope.

It may now be permitted to recall the rough sketch which was shown in this room exactly thirty-six years ago. It is hardly likely that this crude idea had any influence on the design which took a material form some two years later in the first tower telescope on Mount Wilson, though Hale made a generous reference to it. Yet the first tower telescope met with such outstanding success, in which it has been followed by others of a like type, that an intelligent anticipation of the principle may still claim a certain interest. The tower and the substitution of a long-focus refractor for the reflector are due to the genius of Hale, aided by suggestions from Dr C G Abbott. These are features not likely to occur to a modest English astronomer to whom it is never given to command considerable financial resources. Thus under the pressure of economy the nearest approach to the original suggestion is to be seen in the vertical telescope at Oxford, designed by Professor Plaskett. It may be hoped that in happier times this installation, the only one of its kind in this country, will give him every satisfaction