Astronomers at War: South v. Sheepshanks

On South, see the entries by Clerke Agnes M. in Dictionary of national biography and by Warner Deborah J. in Dictionary of scientific biography. Thomas Romney Robinson writes at length about his friend in his obituary in Proceedings of the Royal Society , xvi (1867–68), pp. xliv–xlvii. The RAS obituary appeared as part of the Report of the Council to the Forty-eighth Annual General Meeting, in Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , xxviii (1867–68), 69–72.

As we shall see, South held this equatorial in the highest esteem and its form of mounting will play an important role in our story. This is a remarkable tribute to the part played in its construction by Huddart: “The whole scheme of its fabric was cast by the late Captain Huddart. … All the tinned iron work was made, under the direction and inspection of the same able engineer. Under the like superintendence also, was the brass work made, by Troughton J. Troughton E. ; who having finished it with graduation, reading microscopes, levels, &c. completed the instrument in 1797” ( Herschel J. F. W. James South , “Observations of the apparent distances and positions of 380 double and triple stars …”, Philosophical transactions , cxiv (1824), pt 3, pp. 10–11). The 5ft is described on pp. 4–12, with plates.

Francis Baily , when presenting South with the gold medal of the Astronomical Society, Memoirs of the [Royal] Astronomical Society , ii (1826), 547–8, p. 547.

Herschel South , op. cit. (ref. 2).

James South , “Observations of the apparent distances and positions of 458 double and triple stars …”, Philosophical transactions , cxvi (1826), pt 1. Herschel is cited by Clerke , op. cit. (ref. 1), 681.

The story is authoritatively told in The Times , 5 August 1830, 5.

James South , Practical observations on the Nautical Almanac and Astronomical Ephemeris …; together with an inquiry, if … some improvement in it is not indispensible (London, 1822), and Refutation of the numerous mistatements [sic] and fallacies contained in a paper presented to the Admiralty by Dr. Thomas Young (London, 1829).

This is discussed at length by Boas Marie Hall in her All scientists now: The Royal Society in the nineteenth century (Cambridge, 1984).

James South , Charges against the President and Councils of the Royal Society (London, 1830).

The Athenaeum , 20 November 1830, 729.

This episode is described in the Preface to the so-called second edition of the Charges which South rushed out the same year in order to put on record the actions of the Royal Society officers and his opinion of them. The South archives of the RAS contain South's annotated copies of both editions, with marginal comments indicating more specifically the basis of the various charges. The charges were listed in The Times (copy in vol. i of the two scrapbooks, RAS Sheepshanks archives, 2).

The Athenaeum , 27 November 1830, 747.

A Lover of Science, The knighthood of Sir J. South a death blow to science (London, 1830). The quotation is from p. 7.

According to Richard Sheepshanks , A letter to the Board of Visitors of the Greenwich Royal Observatory in reply to the calumnies of Mr. Babbage at their meeting in June 1853, and in his book entitled The Exposition of 1851 (1st edn, London, 1854; 2nd edn (a reprint of the 1st but “with correspondence prefixed”), London, 1860), 16. However, Sheepshanks also tells us (pp. 46–47) that Stratford may have proposed both men without any intention of creating a balance of power, but that others who joined in nominating South may well have been glad to have Sheepshanks to keep him in check. A fuller account by Sheepshanks of the circumstances whereby he and South took office in 1829 will be quoted below. This important source will be hereafter cited (from the 2nd edn) as Sheepshanks, Letter.

On Sheepshanks see the entry by Clerke Agnes M. in Dictionary of national biography , and the obituaries in Examiner for 8 September 1855, 562–3 (by De Augustus Morgan ), and as part of the Report of the Council to the Thirty-sixth Annual General Meeting in Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , xvi (1856), 90–97.

De Morgan , obituary in Examiner , 563.

De Morgan , ibid. , quoted with endorsement on p. 96 of the RAS obituary.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 16–17. The parentheses in our quotation substitute for a footnote in the original.

This episode is described by Dreyer J. L. E. in chap. 2 of History of the Royal Astronomical Society 1820–1920 , ed. by Dreyer J. L. E. Turner H. H. (London, 1923). Primary documents are conveniently available in Sheepshanks, Letter, Appendix II.

In the RAS obituary (ref. 1), 71.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 19.

Ibid. , 19.

Ibid. , 19–20.

Ibid. , 20.

In the term used in the title of a recent biography by Maboth Moseley , Irrascible genius: A life of Charles Babbage, inventor (London, 1964).

Charles Babbage , The Exposition of 1851; or, a view of the industry, the science, and the government of England (London, 1851), 140; reprinted from the 2nd edn (London, 1851) in Sheepshanks , Letter , 28–29.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 47.

This famous story is told in outline by Dreyer , op. cit. (ref. 19), 52–55, and has recently been retold by Der Nicholas Bagdasarian , “James South and the Cauchoix objective”, Sky & telescope , lxx (1985), 525–6. A major primary source for the ensuing controversy is contained in the complete correspondence and other documents relating to the dispute, which South printed but never published, presumably because he abandoned the account of the negotiations to which it was to be appended. His own interleaved copy with annotations is in the RAS Archives, South papers, 3. It is cited hereafter as South, “Appendix”.

Robinson , op. cit. (ref. 1), pp. xlv–xlvi.

In the report of the meeting on 13 November 1829, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , i (1827–30), 141.

Report of the Council of the Society to the Tenth Annual General Meeting”, ibid. , 151–68, p. 153.

He had parted with the 7ft equatorial to Herschel, who was to take it to the Cape of Good Hope ( Büttmann G. , The shadow of the telescope (New York, 1970), 46).

“From the very first, I wished this Instrument [the 5ft] to be the model of the large Equatorial, but Troughton would not listen to it”, manuscript note by South, “Appendix”, 5. Whether South expressed this wish explicitly when he first approached Troughton is uncertain, but South regarded the 5ft as “the most perfect of his labours” (letter of South to Schumacher H. C. , 22 June 1832; ibid. , 4–6, p. 5) and hoped for something of comparable quality.

Dreyer , op. cit. (ref. 19), 53.

According to the obituary of Troughton published as part of the Report of the Council of the Society to the Sixteenth Annual General Meeting, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , iii (1833–36), 149–55, p. 154.

Robinson , op. cit. (ref. 1), p. xlvi.

This conversation became a central issue in the lawsuit that followed, for South and Troughton were old friends and their business relationships were until this point excessively informal. South refers to the conversation in his letter to Troughton of 27 November 1832: “my continental trip has caused me more than ever to lament, that you did not accede to the proposition I made to you in the May of 1831, of ‘my sustaining the whole expense you had then incurred, provided you would abandon your plan, and construct for me an instrument, after the model of my five feet Equatorial’” (“Appendix”, 12). The reply, drafted by Sheepshanks (see below), stated “we do not admit that any offer was ever made similar to that stated by you” ( ibid. , 13); but South's letter rings true. It is also supported by related documents that fall only a little short of complete proof, as follows. Before Sheepshanks appeared on the scene, on 16 May 1832, South wrote to Troughton Simms alluding to his “proof of friendly feeling, too strong, I trust, to be forgotten”; a manuscript note says this was “To pay every shilling which had been expended without a murmur, if he would begin again & make me one after the model of my Five Feet Equatorial”. He continues: “… one of you [Troughton] standing by my five feet Equatorial, assured both Captain Robertson and myself ‘That it should be made at least as steady and as controllable as it.’ I now reply as then, ‘That done, I ask no more’” (“Appendix”, 1–2). A manuscript entry facing page 1 of “Appendix” copies a document written by Francis Beaufort in 1835: “I well remember that Defendant [South] offered about that time to pay for what had been done provided Troughton would make one like Huddart's [that is, the 5ft] but the answer was always ‘No’ — and that if South trusted him he would find it equal to any micrometrical measurements. I think tho' I cannot swear to the words, that ‘it should be as steady as the 5 feet’, but I will swear that they were tantamount to that expression.”. On 23 February 1833, Brewster David wrote to South: “I remember your stating to me that you had offered to pay Troughton Mr. all that he had expended, provided he would adopt the plan of the five feet Equatorial, which you had from the first thought best, but which in deference to Troughton's Mr. opinion had been abandoned”, South, “Appendix”, 47–48, p. 48. Interestingly, Sheepshanks's posthumous spokesman, writing in The Athenaeum , no. 1489, 10 May 1856, 587, accepts that the offer was made but criticises it: “ James Sir shut his observatory door on Messrs. Troughton & Simms before the instrument was completed, and offered no more than payment of money put of pocket, on condition they should begin again on a new plan.” One might think that to pay all expenses on an instrument that was to be abandoned as a failure was a fair one.

Dreyer , op. cit. (ref. 19), 53.

South to Hammond J. , 15 December 1831, in copies of South correspondence in the Central Library of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: “… my dome was to have been finished by Christmas last … you, who know, how many times the expense of my dome, has exceeded Brunel's Mr. original estimate … the shed which was to have covered my dome only for six weeks, having stood twelve months is still enclosing it. …” The dome “… was to have cost me 450£, and has already (though unfinished) cost at least 1,800£”, South to Schumacher H. C. , 22 June 1832; “Appendix”, 4–6, p. 4. Information about the metal of the dome is contained in the letter from Brunel I. K. to South, 2 January 1832 (South correspondence, Central Library, Kensington and Chelsea); South claimed the additional weight (which Brunel reckoned at only 6 cwt) threatened the foundations.

Memorandum of Hammond J. ( ibid. ): “1831 8 Nov. … Afterwards Mr. I. B[runel] returned with me & Sir James informed him … that he declined his assistance in finishing his Dome. …” There are brief accounts of South's dispute with the Brunels in Isambard Kingdom Brunel by Rolt L. T. C. (London, 1957), 71–72, and in Brunel and his world by John Pudney (London, 1974), 20.

Brunel I. K. to South, 2 January 1832 (South correspondence, Central Library, Kensington and Chelsea). Brunel seems to have played down the remaining defects in the dome, for South was to warn Troughton: “… you should know … that you must move it [the dome] only in one direction, and that with caution; — that the rope by which it is drawn round, is sometimes liable to escape from the hooks, and if you persevere in attempting to move it after this has happened, it will take you an hour or two to restore it; — or if you break off the hooks, or derange their figure, it will put you to some expense to re-establish them. And on no account whatever … is it deemed prudent, or even safe in a high wind, to open the shutters at all”, South to Troughton Simms , 18 February 1833; “Appendix”, 41.

Brunel M. I. to Benjamin Hawes , undated (South correspondence, Central Library, Kensington and Chelsea).

Dreyer , op. cit. (ref. 19), 53.

See ref. 37.

South to Troughton Simms , 16 May 1832; “Appendix”, 1–2.

South to Schumacher H. C. , 22 June 1832; “Appendix”. 4–6, p. 5.

South, “Appendix”, 8–9.

South to Troughton Simms , 18 July 1832; “Appendix”, 6–7, p. 7.

South, “Appendix”, 7–8.

South to Troughton Simms , 20 July 1832; “Appendix”, 8.

South to Troughton Simms , 16 November 1832; “Appendix”, 9–10.

Troughton Simms to South, 20 November 1832; “Appendix”, 10.

Troughton to South, 22 November 1832; “Appendix”, 11.

South to Troughton , 27 November 1832; “Appendix”, 12.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 12.

Ibid. , 13.

Troughton Simms to South, 18 December 1832; South, “Appendix”, 13–14.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 21. South records: “According to his Reverence's oath his letter writing for Troughton & Simms began a few days after the 22nd Nov[embe]r 1832”, manuscript note in prelims to “Appendix”.

Dreyer , op. cit. (ref. 19), 53.

These declarations, opinions, affidavits, etc. are assembled in South's “Appendix”.

South to Troughton Simms , 20 December 1832; “Appendix”, 14.

South , “Appendix”, 17.

South to Troughton Simms , 5 January 1833; “Appendix”, 22.

Many of the documents in South's “Appendix” that are merely copies have his marginal note: “To be written for”. Against a letter from Captain Robertson W. to South dated 7 April 1833 South has asked, “Quaere has this letter been given in evidence?”, “Appendix”, facing p. 66.

See refs 33 and 37.

Robertson to South, 7 April 1833; “Appendix”, 66–68, p. 68.

“Simms more than once regretted to me, that Troughton would not be thwarted and that the whole construction was a child of his own”, Francis Beaufort, document of 1835, transcribed by South , “Appendix”, facing p. 1. “… in my conversations with Simms Mr. , relative to the Equatorial, he has more than once expressed to me his regret at its unfortunate failure, and his surprise at your great patience and forebearance with his firm, and most particularly did he so on one occasion when walking home from your house, and with an expression to me of the unpleasant feeling he had as to the amount of the cost compared with the inefficiency of the work done”, Gwilt Joseph to South, 16 January 1833; South, “Appendix”, 26. “I found Simms Mr. perfectly sensible that the instrument was a failure, and exceedingly anxious, both on your account, and for the sake of his professional name, to give it the stability which it required”, Brewster David to South, 23 February 1833; South, “Appendix”, 47–48, p. 48.

Robinson to South, 15 June 1853, quoted in full by South in A letter to the Fellows of the Royal and the Royal Astronomical Societies, in reply to the Obituary Notice of the late Rev. Richard Sheepshanks, by the President and Council of the Royal Society; and Report of the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society to the Thirty-sixth Annual General Meeting (London, 1856) (hereafter: South, Letter ), 11. There can be no doubt that Robinson actually wrote the words here ascribed to him.

South, “Appendix”, 78–82.

Ibid. , 80.

Troughton Simms to South, 26 June 1833; South, “Appendix”, 84.

South, “Appendix”, 89.

Simms Hamilton Few Few (solicitors for South), 28 September 1833; South, “Appendix”, 92–94, p. 92.

Ibid. , 94.

Ibid. , facing p. 93.

Few Hamilton Few Troughton Simms , 30 September 1833; South, “Appendix”, 94.

Simms Hamilton Few Few , 30 September 1833; South, “Appendix”, 95.

Few Hamilton Few Troughton Simms , 10 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 96.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 21.

See ref. 78.

Few Hamilton Few Troughton Simms , 11 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 97.

Troughton Simms Hamilton Few Few , 12 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 97–98.

Troughton Simms Hamilton Few Few , 18 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 99–100, p. 99.

Few Hamilton Few Troughton Simms , 24 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 100–1.

Troughton Simms Hamilton Few Few , 25 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 101–2.

Few Hamilton Few Troughton Simms , 30 October 1833; South, “Appendix”, 102–3.

Troughton Simms to South, 16 November 1833; South, “Appendix”, 104–5.

Few Hamilton Few Chisholme Co . (for Troughton Simms ), 21 November 1833; South, “Appendix”, 105.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 31.

Chisholme Hamilton Few Few , 3 December 1833; South, “Appendix”, 106.

South, manuscript note facing p. 1 of his “Appendix”.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 14.

James South , in a letter to The Times , 20 November 1838, reprinted (as is the ensuing correspondence) in Sheepshanks , Letter , pp. 13–19 of additional matter, p. 13.

From the anonymous but well-informed review of South's Letter (ref. 68), in The Athenaeum , no. 1487 (26 April 1856), 513–15, p. 513 (one might suppose that the reviewer was Airy, but the review is not among his volumes of publications in the archives of the Royal Greenwich Observatory). So also the RAS obituary of Sheepshanks Sheepshanks: “Mr. was, though not nominally, yet actually, one of the counsel for Troughton Simms” (p. 92).

Sheepshanks , Letter , 50.

Ibid. , 50.

Ibid. , 85.

South , op. cit. (ref. 93); Sheepshanks , Letter , pp. 13–19 of additional matter, p. 18.

Babbage , op. cit. (ref. 26), 142–3, reprinted in Sheepshanks , Letter , p. 30 of additional matter.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 51, 53.

Ibid. , 53.

Ibid. , 32–34.

Review of South's Letter in The Athenaeum, op. cit. (ref. 94), 513.

This account is based on documents in the RAS South archives, 3. These include a copy of the Arbitration Award, and South's private reflections on the campaign. It is possible his figure of 37 meetings is intended to include the first and last.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 30.

Ibid. , 14, 31.

“Oct. 12, 1836 Dollond's telling me the award was given against me”, op. cit. (ref. 104).

These letters are conveniently available in the 2nd edn of Sheepshanks's Letter, from which we cite them.

Sheepshanks , Letter , pp. 5–6 of additional matter, p. 5.

James South , letter to The Times , 16 October 1838; ibid. , 6–7, p. 7.

Richard Sheepshanks , letter to South in The Times , 5 November 1838; ibid. , 7–10, p. 8.

See ref. 104.

A copy of the award is in the RAS South archives, 3.

Sheepshanks's posthumous spokesman ( op. cit. (ref. 37, 1856)) puts it thus: “The instrument, therefore, was finished by the arbitrator's direction, and the arbitrator permitted certain additions, suggested by Mr. Sheepshanks, on the condition that these additions should not be paid for unless success attended them. And they were paid for under the award: That is, the arbitrator held them to have succeeded” (italics in original).

South's lawyers explained the award of costs and their implications in a letter published in The Athenaeum , no. 1489, 10 May 1856, 587, to which the quotation in the preceding reference is a response.

See ref. 104.

This sale seems to have been overlooked by historians. Our Figure 3 is taken from the (possibly unique) copy in the RAS South archives.

RAS South archives, 3.

This sale is often misdated. Thus the Dictionary of scientific biography notice of South assigns it to 1836.

RAS South archives, 3.

Wayman Patrick A. , Dunsink Observatory, 1785–1985 (Dublin, 1987), 92–99.

A clipping is in the RAS South archives, 3, and another in the South papers, Central Library, Kensington and Chelsea.

RAS South archives, 3.

According to his close friend Robinson , op. cit. (ref. 1), p. xlvi.

He engaged in a lively correspondence over the conduct of the Liverpool Observatory, which he published as a pair of pamphlets in 1845: [ Richard Sheepshanks ], Correspondence respecting the Liverpool Observatory, between Mr. John Taylor and the Rev. Richard Sheepshanks (London, 1845), and Supplement to same.

Richard Sheepshanks , A reply to Mr. Babbage's letter to “The Times,” “On the planet Neptune and the Royal Astronomical Society's medal” (London, 1847).

Babbage is of course the subject of articles in Dictionary of national biography and Dictionary of scientific biography. A recent account of him and his work is Moseley, op. cit. (ref. 25).

And with justification: “On Sept. 15th Mr. Goulburn, Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked my opinion on the utility of Babbage's calculating machine, and the propriety of expending further sums of money on it. I replied, entering fully into the matter, and giving my opinion that it was worthless”, Autobiography of Sir George Biddell Airy, K.C.B. , ed. by Wilfrid Airy (Cambridge, 1896), 152.

Babbage , op. cit. (ref. 26). The relevant passages are reprinted in Sheepshanks , Letter , pp. 27–37 of the additional material.

This of course had nothing whatever to do with the Great Exhibition, as a hostile critic ( op. cit. (ref. 94), 514) later pointed out: “There was no more occasion for him [Babbage] to drag Sheepshanks Mr. and his intrigues — even supposing he had intrigued — into the Great Exhibition, than to print his tailor's bill in a book on the Sublime and Beautiful. The plain truth must have been, that the defeat [in the lawsuit] and its concomitants rankled in the minds of both himself and his friend [South], and that the opportunity was judged favourable for revenge”.

The Times had reported what happened in the form of a letter from “F.R.S.” published on 8 July 1830:

At a meeting of the Council of the Royal Society held in the Society's apartments on the 10th of June last, the secretary has recorded the following speeches:-.

“Captain KATER … requested to be informed whether any and what steps were intended to be taken respecting a publication by Mr. Babbage entitled On the Decline of Science in England.”.

Kater acquiesced in the President's wishes, having, he said, raised the matter only out of a sense of duty.

South and/or Babbage lost no time in raising with Lord Rosse the propriety of Sheepshanks's remaining a Fellow of the Royal Society, as we learn from the long review of Babbage's The Exposition of 1851 in The mechanics' magazine , no. 1483 (10 January 1852), 30–35; no. 1484 (17 January 1852), 42–51, and no. 1485 (24 January 1852), 72–75. The reviewer describes the threats to Babbage and continues (p. 48): “What thinks the noble President of the Royal Society of the menace? … The matter has been brought to his Lordship's attention, we believe, but hitherto without any result” (italics in original). It is clear that the reviewer was privy to ‘inside’ information.

See ref. 132. The same reviewer returned to the attack under the heading, “The Royal Society — The morality of its members”, ibid. , no. 1603 (29 April 1854), 386–91, and no. 1604 (6 May 1854), 413–18. The reviewer denies having personal knowledge of Babbage on p. 417.

The mechanics' magazine , no. 1484 (17 January 1852), 48.

South , Letter , 6–7.

Sheepshanks , Letter , 13.

Ibid. , 10.

Ibid. , 9.

Ibid. , 8.

“ Sheepshanks Mr. was examined as a witness; and had there been anything against his character, those who know the acrimony with which the affair was carried on, and the personal feeling on both sides, are sure that it would have been made a subject of cross-examination” (comment in the anonymous review of South's Letter ( op. cit. (ref. 94)), 513). One might be tempted to wonder if in truth South had learned of the incident much later than he claimed, perhaps from some workman. But South later published, verbatim and in full, a letter (see ref. 68) written to him by Robinson in 1853, certifying that South had told him of Sheepshanks's misdemeanour in the early 1830s; and this letter cannot be a total fabrication: “As to his [ Sheepshanks's ] denial of the facts [in embellishment of the basic story], it may pass for its worst, but that you stated them long before Troughton's death [in 1835] all your friends can testify; of one instance I can give the date very nearly, — beginning of July, 1833. [Robinson tells of his attempt to reconcile Babbage Troughton , and continues:] That day I met you at dinner at Bailey's Mr. F. , … and you told, in all its parts, the history given in The Mechanics' Magazine. Then it was quite familiar to me, and seemed so to Bailey Mr. . …”.

What happened at the meeting is implied in the ensuing exchange of letters between Babbage and the Council.

Babbage's letter is in the Royal Society's Miscellaneous correspondence , v (1851–58), Letter 64; it is cited in full in Minutes of Council of the Royal Society from December 10th, 1846 to November 30th, 1858 (London, 1858), 239.

Council minutes , 239.

Babbage to the Secretary of the Royal Society, 21 December 1852 (Royal Society Miscellaneous correspondence , v, Letter 75).

Minutes of meeting of 20 January 1853, Council minutes , 240.

Babbage to the Secretary of the Royal Society, 5/21 February 1853 (Royal Society Miscellaneous correspondence , v, Letter 83).

Rosse Lord Edward Sabine , 4 March 1853 ( ibid. , Letter 88).

Minutes of meeting of 17 March 1853, Council minutes , 243.

In any case there were more pressing matters for the RAS Council — the need to fight off the plan “for locating the Scientific Societies in one building to be erected at Kensington Gore”. The Minute of the Council Meeting of 10 December 1852, at which Sheepshanks himself was present, says of the matter no more than: “A letter was read from Babbage Mr. dated 9th December 1852 accompanied with no. of the Mechanics Magazine” (RAS Council Minutes, loc. cit.).

As shown by the full title of Sheepshanks's Letter. “ Babbage Mr. brought forward the substance of James's Sir letter, as a charge against me, at the meeting of the Board of Greenwich Visitors in June 1853 …”, Sheepshanks , Letter , p. iii.

The account that follows is based on the very full version of events given in The mechanics' magazine , no. 1596 (11 March 1854), 222–4, under the title “The Royal Society — The morality of its members”. The author is obviously hostile to Sheepshanks and associated with the Babbage-South party; the second version of the very hostile review of Babbage's book in the same magazine is later featured under the same title (see ref. 133).

Sheepshanks , Letter , 5: “This [explanation], after some interruption and confusion, I proceeded to give; but as the language I happened to use, though appropriate and parliamentary, was not sufficiently honied to suit the taste of several gentlemen present, who had heard me charged with an attempt to suborn perjury without being at all shocked, I was stopped in my defence just as I was entering on the most essential part, which would scarcely have occupied three minutes.” Elsewhere he says “this was an act of timidity” on the part of the Society (p. 86).

Ibid. , 6.

See ref. 151.

See ref. 133.

Ibid. , 417.

Ibid. .

South, Letter , 4. Of what transpired at the Greenwich meeting we know little, for the official records are silent on the matter. According to Sheepshanks Babbage once more “agitated the Board” ( Sheepshanks , Letter , 86), and Sheepshanks counterattacked by demanding to know why his offence had surfaced at this late date; Babbage could only reply that “he had advocated the charge against me as soon as he was acquainted with it” ( ibid. , 26).

South , Letter , 5.

op. cit. (Report, ref. 15), 97.

South , Letter. .

op. cit. (ref. 94), 514.

Ibid. .

South to Rosse, 11 November 1840, in the Rosse archives at Birr Castle.

De Morgan , op. cit. (ref. 15), 563.