I 34 
HISTORY OF THE 
[1860-70 
Under Cayley’s editorship, which continued until 1881, some 
convenient alterations of form were introduced in the Annual 
Reports. Until 1863 (in which year Cayley was elected first 
Sadleirian Professor of Pure Mathematics at Cambridge) there were 
no headings at all in those reports. Then we have headings to 
indicate the observatories from which reports of work had been 
sent, and a general heading “ Progress of Astronomy ” ; and by 
1865 we have headed subdivisions throughout the whole report. 
The somewhat ambitious “ Progress of Astronomy ” was modified 
in 1869 to “ Notes on some points of interest connected with the 
progress of Astronomy during the past year.” And so it has 
remained with but slight modification down to the present 
time. 
An innovation was given trial during the presidency of 
Warren de la Rue, in the form of insertion in the Monthly 
Notices of brief reports of the discussions which took place at the 
meetings after the reading of the various communications. The 
reports were, however, not systematic, and though it was clear 
that §uch reports were regarded as desirable and likely to be of 
some value, they were not continued. 
Possibly the improvement in the reports of discussions, which 
were published in the Astronomical Register, may have been due 
to this indication of an obvious desideratum. This astronomical 
periodical was started in 1863 January by Sandford Gorton, who 
was a Fellow of our Society elected in i860. It had occurred to 
him that it would be very desirable “ to collect together those 
stray fragments of information, which, though not of sufficient 
importance possibly to occupy the pages of the Monthly Notices, 
may nevertheless in the shape of passing conversations or occasional 
notes, be useful for future reference.” He wished “ to introduce 
a sort of astronomical Notes and Queries, a medium of communica 
tion for amateurs and others.” It aimed further at giving an 
account of the discussions which took place at the meetings of the 
Royal Astronomical Society, both for the sake of those who were 
unable to be present and also in order that some permanent record 
of them should be preserved. 
It must be admitted that the reports of the discussions were 
of a very slight description at first. One would judge that very 
often they recorded only some pithy remarks separated from their 
serious context, and giving but a poor idea of the discussions in 
which they were let fall. One can hardly imagine that the real 
gist of the Astronomer Royal’s remark about Bessel’s probable 
error in his measures of the parallax of 61 Cygni are justly 
recorded when he is reported as saying that “ these probabilities are 
not worth a pin ! ” However, as time went on, the discussions