direct benefits from a knowledge of the sun's surroundings, or of the distance, size, and mass of that luminary. But the nation makes no direct provision for researches into the physical condition and nature of the sun, the planets, stars, star-cloudlets, comets, the moon, and so on. Nor, probably, would an appeal for new observatories to meet this want receive general or effectual support at present. But, about three years ago, it was thought advisable, by two or three persons, to bring a scheme of this nature before the Astronomical Society, so as to secure the support of that body in submitting the matter to those in charge of the national purse. Of the fate of this scheme with the Astronomical Society I need say nothing, save that the Council were practically unanimous in rejecting it—only four voting in its favor. But I would direct particular attention to the nature of the argument used to obtain support for this scheme: "Permanent national provision," said its advocate, "is urgently needed for the cultivation of the physics of astronomy. If the study of the sun alone were in question, that alone would justify such a measure; for there can hardly be a doubt that almost every natural phenomenon connected with climate can be distinctly traced to the sun as the great dominating force, and the inference is unavoidable that the changes, and what we now call the uncertainties of climate, are connected with the constant fluctuations which we know to be perpetually occurring in the sun itself. The bearing of climatic changes on a vast array of problems connected with navigation, agriculture, and health, need but to be mentioned to show the importance of seeking, in the sun, where they doubtless reside, for the causes which govern these changes. It is, indeed, my conviction, that of all the fields now open for scientific cultivation, there is not one which, quite apart from its transcendent philosophical interest, promises results of such high utilitarian value as the exhaustive systematic study of the sun."[1]
- ↑ I quote from a paper by Lieutenant-Colonel Strange, a Fellow of the Astronomical Society. Of course this would not be the place to discuss his remarks. It need hardly be said that no astronomer has ever sanctioned such views, though many astronomers believe that an association exists between terrestrial relations and the phenomena of solar disturbance. It may suffice to remark here that the influence of changes in the sun's condition, as manifested by sun-spots and other solar peculiarities, must be infinitely less than the influence of those changes of aspect which produce the seasons; and yet our acquaintance with these changes leaves the "uncertainties of climate" still unexplained. How much less must be the significance of the cycles of changes in the solar spots! The chief of these, again, are already known, yet we are as far as ever from being able to predict the weather. Even the theories which have been advanced as to the connection between rainfall, prevalent winds, etc., and the spot-cycle, compel their advocates to assume contrary influences for different regions separated by nodal lines of no influence, which lines must also be assumed to shift their position from year to year theoretical devices admitting of being most conveniently adapted to circumstances which would be fatal to any definite theory. Sir J. Herschel well remarks of such ideas that though "some rude approach to the perception of a cycle of the seasons may possibly be attainable, no person in his senses would alter his plans of conduct for six months in advance in the most
