1860-70] ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY 
131 
This decade saw the completion of several large telescopes : 
Lassell’s 4-foot speculum reflector (1861), which Lassell and 
Marth used in observations of satellites and nebulae at Malta, 
1861. It was broken up before Lassell’s death in 1880. 
The Melbourne 4-foot speculum Cassegrain reflector (1869), 
built by T. Grubb, and used by Le Sueur and Ellery in observations 
of southern nebulae, very little of which has been published. 
The Dearborn i8|-inch refractor, 1864, built by Alvan Clark & 
Sons, and used by Burnham in some of his observations of double 
stars. 
The Newall 25-inch refractor, 1869-70, built by T. Cooke & 
Sons, and now at Cambridge. 
The Directors of Observatories in this mid-century decade may 
be recalled as follows :— 
Greenwich 
Cape 
Edinburgh 
Dunsink . 
Cambridge 
Oxford (Radcliffe) 
Durham . 
Liverpool . 
Glasgow . 
Armagh 
Madras 
Melbourne 
Nautical Almanac 
Pulkowa . 
Paris 
Berlin 
Gottingen 
Bonn 
Copenhagen 
Athens 
. G. B. Airy 
. Sir T. Maclear . 
. Piazzi Smyth . 
/ Sir W. R. Hamilton . 
“'IF. F. E. Briinnow 
. J. C. Adams 
. Rev. R. Main . 
. Rev. Temple Chevalier 
. John Hartnup 
. Rob. Grant 
. T. R. Robinson 
. N. R. Pogson . 
. R. L. J. Ellery 
. J. R. Hind 
. Otto Struve 
. Le Yerrier 
/ J. F. Encke 
IW. Foerster 
. Klinkerfues 
. Argelander 
. D’Arrest 
. Schmidt 
1835-1881 
11892 
1833-1870 
11876 
1845-1888 
•¡*1900 
1827-1865 
fi865 
1865-1874 
Ì1891 
1861-1892 
{1892 
1860-1878 
+1878 
1842-1873 
fi 873 
1843-1885 
fi88 5 
1859-1892 
Ì1892 
1823-1882 
•j-1882 
1860-1891 
•¡•1891 
1863-1895 
fi9o8 
1853-1891 
fi 895 
1862-1889 
fi 905 
1853-1870 
ti 877 
1825-1864 
fi865 
1865-1904 
fl92I 
1859-1884 
f 1884 
1837-1875 
•D875 
1857-1875 
fi 875 
1858-1884 
fi88 4 
Among the references in the Annual Reports of the Council to 
private observatories, we find the following names : Carrington, 
Lassell, De la Rue, Lee (Hartwell), Selwyn, Dawes, Huggins, 
Wrottesley, Rosse, Lockyer, Webb, Howlett. 
As we look through the records from the time of its first incep 
tion, the Society seems to have flourished most especially by reason 
of the confidence which it showed that the science which it was 
formed to encourage, could best be fostered by giving complete 
freedom to its members to prosecute researches chosen by them 
without any official pressure in special directions. 
The absefice of imposed guidance and the freedom of its indivi 
dual members is a feature which cannot fail to strike us now, living 
in these days of tendency towards organisation of scientific work.