The Royal Society, the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Astronomer Royal

The Royal Society, the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Astronomer RoyalAuthor(s): Bernard LovellSource: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jul., 1994), pp. 283-297Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/532168 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 07:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.82 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:42:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/532168?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 48 (2), 283-297 (1994)

THE ROYAL SOCIETY, THE ROYAL GREENWICH OBSERVATORY AND THE ASTRONOMER ROYAL

by

SIR BERNARD LOVELL, F.R.S.

Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories, Jodrell Bank, Macclesfield, Cheshire SKll 9DN

1. INTRODUCTION

In April 1965 the Science Research Council received its Royal Charter and assumed responsibility for the support of major aspects of scientific research in the UK. This paper is primarily concerned with the consequent termination of the responsibility of the Royal Society for the Royal Greenwich Observatory* and the subsequent cessation of the historic association of the Astronomer Royal with the Observatory.

The Observatory was founded by King Charles II in 1675: see figure 1. The King's advisers included Sir Jonas Moore, Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, who enlisted the help of John Flamsteed, a self-taught astronomer. The King appointed Flamsteed 'our astronomical observator' and through the historical accident that Moore was Flamsteed's patron the Observatory came under the control of the Board of Ordnance.' 2 Although a number of Fellows of the Royal Society were involved in the recommendations for the founding of the Observatory, the Society had no formal responsibility for the Observatory or its work during the first 35 years of its existence. During those years Flamsteed's relations with his contemporaries deteriorated, and the disputes, involving Halley and Newton, over the publication of his results, contributed to the issue of Queen Anne's Warrant of 1710.3 By this Warrant the President of the Royal Society and other Fellows of the Society were appointed to serve as Visitors to the Observatory.

*The Royal Observatory moved from Greenwich Park to Herstmonceux Castle in Sussex in 1946 and was renamed the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO). A further move to Cambridge was made in spring 1990.

283

© 1994 The Royal Society



Sir Bernard Lovell

-.ftl - : f /', / s 'V

" M *: ' :'< ~t':.. ¥ ' ~' :. " .<.j .4/' , :' . ; * ' qtt Jj .4

^ -8:.·r '.. .. . . :. 4Jtl, z .

*. :/ ., , 'rn .

o-'"; ,'^ ~ . I t-tn a

s f: t : .. ... : f4g t' f un/i /f t/Ie 1 :, J4.9 /.i, ,,{AsJ i F sJ >;07 c1

·' // ;' !:!"; ! 1 ';nO . 1...i.~* ' ,".. / $, C/ J, ......

t: t. .s , y , § ,... , . 4. . : iq Q 1....

: D.., , :.. .;:". ., ' , c .A .,'c

g, t. ( Ji2 ,4f* t

(^ ~....d^ .,: . .^ ; ,.

. ... ..i4 /. . ... .4 s w. .0J

.:C ...t a y ,.a- , : '" n /4: , .- .:7 .4i jtt .td $ 4 , ;4x .x / /j ;; '½ Jtc? /uAc As /j

f . ½ y p < j1> v $ ( 1 i

..: ::" S' 5$ :.' ra.. . I, 9' .:y. 4 (7 & /f 9+ $ >': J."' " 7

;..::'I t .,., 7,. ....Y.. :. . . .

{ ...l,...,.., ..''..'':A' r . . ~, ., Z,'.' '.~ ,~ ~ ~ ":!:~t: ~.:~; ~"~ z.. f ~'! ~ t ~ ......

Ae -v -tb '~l,*cc-

,0/ t4- 'A,a . 47

l::ln i f S / # f ; -41t4

FIGURE 1. Royal Warrant appointing 'our trusty and well beloved John Flamsteed' as astronomical 'observator', 4 March 1674/5. From manuscript in RGO Archives, classmark RGO 1/40 f60r, reproduced by permission of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Syndics of

Cambridge University Library.

284



The Royal Society, Royal Greenwich Observatory and Astronomer Royal 285

The activities of the Board of Visitorst in relation to the Observatory and the Astronomer Royal have been described in the three volumes Greenwich Observatory4 and by Laurie.5 In 1816 the Board recommended that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty should become responsible for the manage- ment of the Observatory, and in 1820 this recommendation was implemented. The Admiralty retained responsibility for the Observatory until the transfer to the Science Research Council in 1965.

Although in the years following World War II the Board of Visitors had ful- filled its formal obligations by means of an annual visit, the President and Council of the Royal Society continued to exercise a decisive role in the progress of astronomical research in the UK through the Observatory. For example, immediately after the War a proposal for building a large optical telescope was submitted to the Royal Society by the President and Council of the Royal Astronomical Society. In June 1946 the Council of the Royal Society agreed that application should be made to the Treasury for a grant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred and the financial control was vested in the Admiralty.6 This decisive involvement of the Royal Society in the affairs of the Observatory was abruptly terminated in 1965 at a critical stage in the development of the plans for a large optical telescope in the southern hemisphere.

2. THE TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE ADMIRALTY AND THE ROYAL

SOCIETY TO THE SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

In the late 1950s and early 1960s a powerful influence on astronomical developments in the UK was exerted by the Council of the Royal Society advised by its British National Committee for Astronomy (especially where international relations were concerned) and by the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society. In particular, Richard Woolley, who had succeeded Sir Harold Spencer Jones as Astronomer Royal in 1956, was an ex officio member of the British National Committee for Astronomy and its Chairman from 1958 to 1964. When Woolley arrived from Australia as Astronomer Royal he found considerable political pressure on the UK to join the European Southern Observatory (ESO) project. He had already promulgated the idea of a Commonwealth large optical telescope for the Southern Hemisphere when he was Director of the Mount Stromlo Observatory and strongly opposed the pro-

t After the formation of the Astronomical Society in 1820 (the Society received its Royal Charter in 1830) a change occurred in the constitution of the Visitors to the Observatory. King William IV's Warrant of 1830 reconstituted the Visitors to include PRS and 5 Fellows and the President RAS and 5 members of the Astronomical Society. The Visitors were styled 'Board' after the advent of Airy as Astronomer Royal (1835).



Sir Bernard Lovell

posal for the UK to join the ESO project. The interaction of the complex political and scientific interests during the next decade has been described by Lovell.7 Here, it is relevant only to record that the emergence of the important Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) from the tangle was a direct result of the visit to Australia in 1963 of the President of the Royal Society (Sir Howard Florey) and the Executive Secretary (David Martin). In a letter to G.B. Gresford, Secretary of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization on 15 October 1963, Martin wrote:

As you may know, one immediate outcome is that at the invitation of the [Australian] Academy the Royal Society is setting up a committee to join with the Academy in discussing the proposed 150-inch telescope and Sir Howard has agreed to be Chairman8

The work of this Royal Society Southern Hemisphere Telescope Committee, in collaboration with the parallel committee of the Australian Academy, had been completed early in 1965 and on May 24 Martin informed J. Deeble (Secretary of the Australian Academy) that a date of June 30 had been fixed for the submission of the proposal to Her Majesty's Government.

On 29 June 1965 Florey wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science (Anthony Crosland) seeking financial support for the 150-inch AAT.

I look forward to learning of your consideration of this request and needless to

say, the Royal Society is ready and willing to give every assistance in its power to the furtherance of the proposal.9

The Secretary of State replied to Florey on 7 July:

I am impressed by what you say as to the merits of the proposal. If the UK Government were to participate in this way they would do so through the Science Research Council.

This letter from the Secretary of State symbolized the abrupt termination of the formal association of the Royal Society with the Anglo-Australian Telescope and with the major elements of astronomical development. The Royal Society Southern Hemisphere Committee was dissolved in an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the SRC (Brian Flowers) and the President of the Royal Society (Lord Blackett) in January 1968, and there are no further significant documents concerning the project in the Royal Society archives. The Royal Society Board of Visitors to RGO was dissolved by Royal Warrant on 27 August 1965.

3. THE TITLE OF ASTRONOMER ROYAL

According to Forbes1 and McCrea2 the origin of the title 'Astronomer

286




Royal' is uncertain. Flamsteed is regarded, by convention, as the first Astronomer Royal, but he was not appointed as such. In the Warrant to the Ordnance concerning the payment of his salary he is referred to as 'Our Astronomical Observator'. Flamsteed's successor, Edmond Halley, was appointed in 1720 by King George I as 'Our Astronomical Observator in Our Observatory at Greenwich'.2 According to Howse,°1'

n the same wording was used when Nevile Maskelyne was appointed in 1765. In the more formal documents of that period he is generally referred to as Royal Astronomer, some- times even Royal Professor at Greenwich, though he is usually Astronomer Royal in the less formal ones.*

Although the title Astronomer Royal became common usage in the second half of the 18th century, the formal Warrants of appointment continued to refer to the Astronomical Observator. Thus in 1835 George Airy was appointed by Royal Warrant as 'Our Astronomical Observator in Our Observatory at Greenwich'. 12

W.H. Christie, who succeeded Airy in 1881, did not receive a Royal Warrant and according to Meadows'3 'no Astronomer Royal after Christie has received a Royal Warrant'. Frank Dyson, Christie's successor in 1910, was appointed by letter from the Admiralty dated 21 September 1910:14 'I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that the King has been pleased to approve of you being appointed as Astronomer Royal . .. and you will be required to undertake the duties of that office'. Spencer Jones (1935) and Woolley (1956) were appointed as Astronomer Royal by similar letters from the Admiralty.t

4. THE RELATION OF THE ASTRONOMER ROYAL TO

THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH

The Royal Warrants appointing the successive Astronomical Observators specifically tied the office to the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, in the phrase 'Our Astronomical Observator at Our Observatory at Greenwich'. After Airy, when the appointment was made by letter from the Admiralty, this tie was no longer explicitly stated. The letter from the Admiralty to Dyson (21 September 1910; see above) stated that the King had approved his appointment as Astronomer Royal to succeed Christie 'and you will be required to undertake

* In the papers published in the Philosophical Transactions, Halley (AR 1720-42) is referred to either as Astron. Reg. or Regius Astronomer at Greenwich. Thereafter, from Bradley (AR 1742-62) onwards, the references are always to Astronomer Royal.

t Subsequently, after the de facto association of the Astronomer Royal, with the RGO ceased, the 12th, 13th and 14th Astronomers Royal Martin Ryle (1972), Graham Smith (1982) and Arnold Wolfendale (1991) were appointed as Astronomer Royal by Royal Warrant.



Sir Bernard Lovell

the duties of that office'. In Spencer Jones's letter of appointment15 from the Admiralty (21

November 1932), reference was made to Dyson's retirement from 'the office of Astronomer Royal at Greenwich'. The letter continued:

It therefore gives me much pleasure after consultation with the Prime Minister, to offer you the appointment [of Astronomer Royal] and I shall be much obliged if you will let me know at your convenience whether you are willing that your name should be submitted to His Majesty the King.

When Woolley was appointed the 11th holder of the office, his letter of invitation from the Admiralty (10 May 1955) read:'6

The Astronomer Royal, Sir Harold Spencer Jones, will be retiring shortly. The advice which I have received on the choice of a successor to this important post is that you are eminently fitted for it ... I shall be obliged if you would let me know . . . whether you are willing that your name should be submitted to Her Majesty the Queen.

There is no mention of the Observatory in this letter although it is stated that 'the Astronomer Royal is provided with unfurnished apartments at Herstmonceux'.

The wording of the Royal Warrants and the letters from the Admiralty to Dyson and Spencer Jones implied a responsibility for the work of the Observatory but in the case of Woolley only residence at the Observatory was mentioned. Until his retirement in 1971 there was never a formal post of director of the Royal Observatory but the office of Astronomer Royal entailed de facto the responsibility for the work of the Observatory.

A new situation arose in 1965 when the formal responsibilities of the Admiralty and the Royal Society for the RGO passed to the Science Research Council. The Royal Greenwich Observatory became one of the SRC establish- ments, and the SRC became responsible for the appointment of a director. Woolley was not due to retire until 1971 and hence the appointment of his successor, and the processes leading to the advice to the Prime Minister concerning the appointment of the Astronomer Royal, did not immediately arise. The interests of the RGO were represented in SRC by the formation of a RGO Committee reporting to the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee of the Council. William McCrea was Chairman of this Committee and Woolley was an ex officio member. The Committee reported to Council through the Astronomy, Space and Radio Board. Although the Royal Society appointed an assessor to the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee* the influence of the Society on the affairs of the RGO was much diminished compared with that of

* McCrea was also the Royal Society assessor on the APGC during his term (1965-70) as Chairman of the RGO Committee. Sir Martin Ryle succeeded McCrea as Chairman of the RGO Committee in 1971.

288




the previous Board of Visitors. The RGO Committee was largely concerned with the budget of the Observatory and with the preparation of successive 'forward look' proposals.

Brian Flowers* succeeded Sir Harry Melville as Chairman of the SRC in September 1967, and the organization of UK astronomy in relation to the RGO coupled with the succession to Woolley soon became dominant issues for the ASR Board of the Council. The SRC commitment to share the cost of the Anglo-Australian Telescope had been formalized only a few months before Flowers took office. In addition to this heavy financial commitment, the SRC was faced with substantial requests for other developments in astronomy -

particularly in radio astronomy and space research. In fact, Flowers was the first person carrying responsibility for the science budget who had to face the problem that astronomy was no longer primarily the concern of the Royal Observatory as it had been for nearly 300 years; neither was optical astronomy the only avenue for exploring the Universe. In searching for an appropriate new organization, Flowers appointed two review bodies with Fred Hoyle (Chairman of the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee) as Chairman - the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere Review Committees. The Southern Hemisphere Committee presented its report late in 1968 and its con- clusions - mainly concerning the arrangements for the observatory in South Africa and the proposal to construct the 48-inch Schmidt on the AAT site - were accepted without serious problems.17

By contrast, the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee, of which both Woolley and H.A. Briick (the Astronomer Royal for Scotland) were members, could not reach unanimous agreement. This Committee, which first met in January 1969, reached agreement on only one significant issue, namely the need for a major new optical telescope on a favourable overseas site. On the organizational issue there was complete disagreement about the role of the RGO. One section of the Committee proposed that a national centre should be created either in a university town or on an isolated site. Another section of the Committee attacked the Isaac Newton Telescope and the RGO, and considered that 'it would be folly on the part of the SRC to go ahead with a Northern Hemisphere large telescope if any part of its development or organisation is to be put in the hands of the present RGO'. Although a draft report was prepared by the SRC secretariat in February 1970, the dispute over the organizational arrangements led to a stalemate. Woolley and Brtick were prepared to sign only if the report omitted 'the proposal to found a new Centre, and avoids pejora- tive reference to the Royal Observatories'. By the autumn of 1970 a final 40- page report from the NHRC was submitted to the SRC recommending the cre-

* At the time of his appointment Flowers was Professor of Theoretical Physics in the University of Manchester. He was knighted in 1969 and raised to the Peerage in 1979.



Sir Bernard Lovell

ation of a National Centre outside the Royal Observatories; Woolley and Briick dissented, and the report was never published.18

5. THE ATTITUDE OF FLOWERS TO THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ASTRONOMER

ROYAL AND THE RGO

When Flowers was appointed Chairman of the SRC in 1967 he was widely known as a distinguished theoretical physicist. He had worked in the atomic energy projects at Chalk River, Ontario and at Harwell, where he became Head of the Theoretical Physics Division. He had worked in the Department of Mathematical Physics in the University of Birmingham and since 1958 had been Professor of Theoretical Physics in the University of Manchester, becoming the Langworthy Professor and Director of the Physics Laboratory in 1961. During those years he absorbed the feeling among the wider scientific community that the privileges and power exercised by the successive Astronomers Royal were unjustified in the contemporary context of scientific research in the UK - why not a Physicist Royal, for example? Of greater importance were the immediate problems he faced in SRC concerning major and costly astronomical developments in radio astronomy and space research, which lay outside the Royal Observatory and the remit of the Astronomer Royal. In private conversations among members of Council, Flowers's attitude to the Astronomer Royal had emerged. As Chairman of the RGO Committee McCrea had dis- cussed with him in 1969 the question of Woolley's successor and continued to make strong representations that there should be no change in the relation of the Astronomer Royal to the RGO. However, the difficulties, finally erupting in the report of NHRC, led Flowers to seek means of ending this historic linkage. Flowers has clearly expressed his attitude:'9

What concerned me was firstly, that astronomy was wider than the optical branch alone, and was becoming more so every day; secondly, that the leading astronomers seemed unlikely to be in the optical branch for some time to come; and thirdly, that we had to have someone to lead and manage the RGO in its optical work who did not necessarily need or deserve any special title other than Director. If there was to be an Astronomer Royal he or she had to be someone the astronomical community, the scientific community more widely, and the scien-

tifically informed public could feel was outstanding among that generation of British astronomers generally.

6. THE ELECTORAL BOARD

Early in 1970 Flowers initiated the action to appoint the successor to Woolley. Thus, 19 March 1970, Flowers to Lovell:20

290




You will remember that a little while ago I told you that Dick Woolley had decided to retire at the end of 1971. The time has now come to set up under my chairmanship the electoral board to advise the SRC on the choice of his successor. The board will work in private but its membership must obviously command the con- fidence both of the astronomy community and of the general scientific community. The field of choice is somewhat narrowed since it would not be right for potential candidates to be members of the board and these could of course be observational, theoretical or radio astronomers as well as 'instrumentalists' active in the astronomy field. The only astronomer associated with the SRC whom I had envisaged as being on the board is yourself.

I should be grateful if you could suggest, in your capacity as President of the Royal Astronomical Society, one or two people who might be suitable members. Naturally I want a small, well-balanced board chosen in the light of advice from you, Patrick Blackett, Derman Christopherson and the Civil Service Department.

At the meeting of the Council in July 1970 Flowers secured agreement to his

procedure to find a successor to Woolley and to the membership of an Electoral Board under his Chairmanship consisting of Blackett, Lovell, A.W. Merrison, J. Oort, D. Sciama, and a member of the Civil Service Commission (F.H. Allen), with R. St. J. Walker as Secretary. On 20 August after consultation with the Board members he wrote to 34 heads of observatories and science depart- ments in the UK, Europe, the USSR, the USA and Australia.

The letter circulated by Flowers on 20 August was a straight request for advice in seeking a successor to Woolley as director of the RGO. The letter contained no reference to the appointment of Astronomer Royal or to any advice that might subsequently be tendered to the Prime Minister about this

appointment. Even so, in view of the 300-year linkage of the posts, it would be natural for the recipients of this letter to assume that the linkage of the AR with the RGO would be continued. That this was the case is clear from several of the responses which referred to the post of 'Astronomer Royal and Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory'. However, there were important exceptions supporting Flowers's private opinion that the appointments should be separated,21 and most of the responses raised the question of the function of RGO in an era when astronomical research was no longer confined to the optical spec- trum. When the Electoral Board first met on 20 October 1970, 31 suggestions for the post of director RGO had resulted from Flowers's letter of 20 August. Flowers was about to visit the USA and Australia, and at this meeting the Board identified 10 possible successors to Woolley and asked Flowers to make further enquiries during his visit.

At the second meeting of the Electoral Board on 7 December 1970 the report from Flowers on discussions22 during his visit to the major observatories in the USA and Australia was of decisive importance. The Board 'unanimously * McCrea, then the Chairman of the RGO Committee of SRC, expressed dismay that,

although he was a recipient of the letter from Flowers, the RGO Committee was not represented on the Electoral Board.28



Sir Bernard Lovell

agreed that Dr Maarten Schmidt was the strongest candidate. His appointment would greatly strengthen astronomy both in the UK and Europe and could offer an excellent opportunity for the RGO, in association with university astronomers, to regain its former pre-eminence'.

7. THE LEGAL COMPLICATIONS

Schmidt was one of the 10 candidates identified as possible successors to

Woolley at the Board's first meeting and in his conversations with Flowers, followed by his letter (Schmidt-Flowers, 24 November 1970), he had indicated his interest in the appointment. After the Board's decision four months

elapsed before Flowers was able to extend the formal invitation to Schmidt. As Walker explained to the Board (letter dated 13 April 1971), 'The reason for this

delay in writing was that one of the formal issues which had to be cleared with the Government raised constitutional legal points which the Government's Law Officers have taken all this time to settle'. The legal issues probably had a decisive effect on Schmidt's decision not to accept the invitation. In his formal letter of invitation Flowers had explained to Schmidt (8 April 1971):

The appointment would be as Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, which also carries responsibility for activities in South Africa. You will appreci- ate that the title of 'Astronomer Royal' is strictly the gift of the Queen, and it is impossible to say how her prerogative would be exercised; in any case I have now been advised that there is at the present time a statutory impediment to the title of Astronomer Royal being held by anyone not of British birth.*

Following this invitation, Schmidt agreed to meet Flowers and Walker. About this meeting Schmidt wrote (Schmidt-Lovell, 2 May 1983).

I met Brian Flowers and Mr Walker at a hotel in downtown The Hague in late April or early May, 1971. I was told that the government lawyers had taken several months to decide that the Act of Settlement was to be so interpreted that a foreigner could not hold the title of A.R. (This is ironic since the relevant part of

* The Act of Settlement (1701) was designed to regulate and define the rights of the English monarchy. It provided that, if William III and the future Queen Anne died without heirs, the crown would pass to James I's granddaughter, Sophia of Hanover, or her heirs, if they were Protestants. The Act ensured the Protestant Hanoverian succession to the throne and restricted the rights of the crown to appoint foreigners. One of the provisions of the Act read: 'No person out of the Kingdom of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominion there unto belonging, although he be naturalized or made a denizen (except such as one born of English parents), shall be capable to be of the privy council or a member of either House of Parliament, or enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of tenements, or herediments, from the crown to himself, or to any other or others in trust of him.' This Clause was virtually repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1870 as to persons obtaining a certificate of naturalization.

292




the Act, passed in Parliament in 1701, was directed against my countryman, King William III, who I believe had appointed too many Dutch officers in the English army.) Most of the discussion was spent on questions concerning the role of director RGO and the future prospects for astronomy in the U.K .... it is defi-

nitely the case that the separation made the offer less attractive. Coming in as an outsider to take a post as important as that of director RGO is a difficult and risky venture, and it seemed unfortunate to have the stature of the directorship diminished by the separation at this particular time. I wonder, in fact, would the separation have happened if I had not been under consideration?

The answer to Schmidt's query is, undoubtedly, that the separation would have happened but that his particular case precipitated the decision as revealed at the next meeting of the Electoral Board on 13 July 1971. Flowers explained Schmidt's rejection of the invitation and the constitutional problem.

Flowers said that the delay in extending the invitation to Schmidt arose because of a legal difficulty extending back for several centuries, but eventually the Lord Chancellor had given a judgment that no one of foreign nationality could occupy the post of Astronomer Royal. Schmidt could, therefore, only be invited after a further decision had been obtained to separate the post of Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory from that of Astronomer Royal. It was on this basis that the invitation to Schmidt was eventually extended and at this moment S.R.C. had no particular remit to make recommendations about the disposal of the title of Astronomer Royal. It was generally accepted that this unfortunate delay may well have been decisive in finally leading to the refusal of Schmidt.23

The Board then turned to the remaining nine names on the shortlist that

emerged at its first meeting on 20 October 1970. A number of names were withdrawn in the light of subsequent information that 'the chances of ...

accepting were so slight that it would be only realistic to withdraw their names from the list. After discussion, the Board agreed to recommend that any of the four remaining candidates would be suitable directors of the RGO'.24 Of these, Hoyle had already stated that he did not wish to be considered for the post. When Flowers visited Australia in November 1970 Hanbury Brown had informed him that he would be a candidate if it was combined with that of AR.25 It was agreed that the Secretary 'would fly to meet Gold wherever he was in America and put the point to him that there was now a very, very short list and to ask if it would be his intention to accept if he received the invitation' .23

Walker met Thomas Gold in Ithaca, New York, on 21 July 1971 and received an instant refusal:

he told me that it had been ascertained that under the statutes and ordinances under which the position of Astronomer Royal was established originally, it is stated that he must be British-born. Therefore I was not a candidate for this posi-



Sir Bernard Lovell

tion.* In view of that it had been decided to split up the two positions, and they would offer me the directorship of Herstmonceux while the position of A.R. would go to someone else. Mr. Walker would not divulge who they had in mind for that . . . I regarded this entire procedure as absurd and somewhat offensive and declined to have any further dealings about it.26 t

Immediately after Gold's refusal, both Flowers and Walker had meetings with Margaret Burbidge. On 20 September Walker circulated the Electoral Board with details of the position.

Professor Margaret Burbidge has provisionally accepted the offer of appointment as Director/RGO. Her main proviso concerns the possibility of making suitable arrangements for her to have the full collaboration and support of her husband in the running of the Observatory and in the development of her plans for the future of astronomy in this country.

Eventually, on 1 October 1971, Flowers was able to inform the Electoral Board that Margaret Burbidge had been appointed director of the RGO and would take up her appointment during the summer of 1972. Her tenure of this

post was brief: she resigned on 30 November 1973.27

8. THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ASTRONOMER ROYAL 1972

The official announcement from 10 Downing Street about the separation of the posts of AR and director RGO was made on 22 July 1971.

The Queen has approved that the posts of Astronomer Royal and of the Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory should in future be regarded as separate posts.

Sir Richard Woolley, the present Astronomer Royal and Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, will be retiring at the end of this year, after serving in those capacities since 1955. In 1965, the Royal Greenwich Observatory was transferred to the Science Research Council under the powers of the Science and Technology Act. From that time the officers employed in the establishment have been appointed under the Charter of the Science Research Council.

The decision to separate the two posts does not mean that they will necessarily be held by different persons.

* Walker's meeting with Gold occurred only 8 days after the meeting of the Electoral Board at which it was decided to invite Gold. The present author is not aware that in this brief period a legal opinion had been obtained concerning the eligibility of Gold as a candidate for the office of Astronomer Royal. Gold was a naturalized British subject and the clause in the 1701 Act of Settlement which would have excluded him was rescinded in the Naturalization Act of 1870. He had been elected F.R.S. in 1964 (not as a Foreign Member) and would not have been excluded in terms of the ruling of the Council of the Royal Society concerning the election of Fellows.

t Compare the response to Flowers's enquiry of 20 Aug. 1970 in which Gold21 recommended that the title of AR should either be abandoned or disconnected from the director RGO.

294




The title 'The Royal Greenwich Observatory' will continue.

Although the posts were formally separated there was no reason why a director RGO of British nationality should not also be appointed Astronomer Royal. The appointment was, and remains, the prerogative of the Sovereign on the basis of advice tendered by the Prime Minister following the normal processes of consultation by the Prime Minister's appointments secretary.

In 1971 when Margaret Burbidge accepted the post of director RGO, the appointment of the 12th Astronomer Royal to succeed Woolley had not been made. In his letter to the Electoral Board of 1 October 1971, confirming that Margaret Burbidge had been appointed director RGO, Flowers added:

The appointment of the next Astronomer Royal is as you know a separate question and is the prerogative of the Queen, who will no doubt wish to consider several possible candidates.

In July 1972 it was announced that Sir Martin Ryle was to succeed Woolley as 12th Astronomer Royal. His successors as the 13th and 14th Astronomers Royal, Sir Francis Graham-Smith and Professor Arnold Wolfendale, were sim- ilarly separate appointments from that of director RGO.* Graham-Smith was director RGO from 1976 to 1981; subsequently he was appointed as the 13th Astronomer Royal (1982-1990) and thus is the only person to have held both these offices.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Lord Flowers, F.R.S., was the Chairman of the Science Research Council during the period when the association of the Astronomer Royal with the Royal Greenwich Observatory ended, and I wish to thank him for his advice on the draft of this paper and for his permission to quote the extract from his letter (section 5). I am indebted to those who have read the early drafts of this paper, and for their advice, particularly to Sir William McCrea, F.R.S., Sir Francis Graham-Smith, F.R.S., Commander Derek Howse, M.B.E., D.S.C., Professor Bernard Pagel, F.R.S., and Mr A.J. Perkins (the Royal Greenwich Observatory Archivist), especially for his help with sections 3 and 4 of the paper. I also wish to thank Professor Maarten Schmidt, Professor T. Gold, F.R.S., and Professor R. Hanbury Brown, A.C., F.R.S., for permission to quote extracts from their correspondence, and the Librarian and staff of the Royal Society library for their assistance.

* The specific post of Director RGO ceased to exist in the re-organization of March 1993 when A. Boksensburg, F.R.S., then the director, was appointed Director Observatories and J.V. Wall was appointed Head of RGO. This post also ceased to exist in August 1993 when Wall was appointed Head, Astronomy Division, the Royal Observatories.



Sir Bernard Lovell

NOTES

1 A full account of the procedure leading to the foundation of the Observatory and the appointment of Flamsteed is given by E.G. Forbes, Greenwich Observatory vol. 1: Origin and Early History (1675-1835), Taylor & Francis, 1975.

2 W.H. McCrea, The Royal Greenwich Observatory, HMSO 1975. 3 An account of the difficulties that led to Queen Anne's Warrant of December 1710

and the text of the Warrant is given by E.G. Forbes, op. cit. 4 See E.G. Forbes, op. cit.; A.J. Meadows Greenwich Observatory vol. 2: Recent

History (1836-1975); and Derek Howse, ibid., vol. 3: The Buildings and Instruments, Taylor & Francis 1975.

5 P.S. Laurie, Q. J. R. Ast. Soc. 7, 169 (1966); and 8, 334 (1967). 6 F. Graham-Smith and J. Dudley, J. Hist. Astr. 1, 13 (1982). 7 B. Lovell, Q. J. R. Ast. Soc. 26, 393, 1985. For a complete account of the subsequent

history of the AAT, see S.C.B. Gascoigne, K.M. Proust, M.O. Robins, The Creation of the Anglo-Australian Observatory (C.U.P., 1990).

8 The correspondence between D.C. Martin and G.B. Gresford in October 1963 is in the Royal Society files NA 9/10. The other members of the Royal Society Committee were: Woolley, D.E. Blackwell (Oxford), H. Bondi, W.H. McCrea, J.D. McGee, H.S.W. Massey, R.O. Redman, M. Ryle, with the later addition (7 November 1963) of H. Melville. The Committee was given the specific task of collaborating with the similar committee set up by the Australian Academy of Science to assess the scientific aspects of the proposal for a large telescope in the southern hemisphere.

9 The text of Florey's letter to the Secretary of State is at annex 4 of Lovell, op. cit. (note 7).

10 Derek Howse, Nevil Maskelyne: The Seaman's Astronomer, p. 58 (CUP, 1989). 11 Derek Howse, op. cit., and personal communication, Howse-Lovell, 28 December

1993, deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.

12 I am indebted to A.J. Perkins, the Royal Greenwich Observatory Archivist for supplying copies of the Royal Warrants concerning Airy's appointment, namely, Warrant of 1835 (George IV) RGO 6/1 ff. 193-194 and Warrant of 1837 (Victoria) RGO 6/1 f. 195.

13 A.J. Meadows, op. cit. (note 4), p. 15. 14 I am indebted to Commander Derek Howse for drawing my attention to this extract

from the book by Margaret Wilson, Ninth Astronomer Royal: A life of Frank Watson

Dyson, p. 148 (Heffer, 1951). 15 National Maritime Museum manuscripts class MS 73/128 (the personal papers of Sir

Harold Spencer Jones). This letter was signed by the first Lord of the Admiralty, Bolton Meredith Eyres Monsell (later Viscount Monsell). I am indebted to A.J. Perkins, Royal Greenwich Observatory Archivist, for supplying a copy of this letter and to the Trustees of the National Maritime Museum for permission to use this quotation.

16 Royal Greenwich Observatory Archives, Cambridge University Library RGO 114 R.v d R. Woolley personal file Part 1. I am indebted to A.J. Perkins, Royal Greenwich Observatory Archivist, for supplying a copy of this letter. The letter was signed by the first Lord of the Admiralty, J.P.L. Thomas, later (1955) Viscount Cilcennin. The quotation from the letter is reproduced by permission of the Syndics

296




of Cambridge University Library and of the Royal Greenwich Observatory. 17 For an account of the proceedings of the Southern Hemisphere Committee and the

origins of the 48-inch Schmidt telescope see B. Lovell, Q. J. R. Ast. Soc. 26, 456 (1985).

18 A detailed account of the work of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee and the subsequent action by SRC in respect of the Northern Hemisphere Observatory is given in the paper by B. Lovell, 'The genesis of the Northern Hemisphere Observatory', Q. J. R. Ast. Soc. 32, 1 (1991).

19 See correspondence Lovell-Flowers, October 1993, deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.

20 The 1970 correspondence Flowers-Lovell and all the succeeding relative papers are deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.

21 For example, on the dates indicated the following comments were received by Flowers: D. Blackwell (Oxford, 22 Sept. 1970): 'There is a fair amount of feeling among astronomers in the UK, chiefly outside the RGO, and among younger astronomers, that the title should be discontinued'. T. Gold (Cornell, 23 Sept. 1970): My real opinion is that the position of Astronomer Royal should either be abandoned or disconnected from the directorship of the Observatory at Herstmonceux'. F. Hoyle (Cambridge) 27 August 1970) 'the next Director should not be designated Astronomer Royal' and he was in favour of suppressing the title.

22 Flowers's main discussions were with Babcock, Eggen, Gold, Greenstein, Hanbury Brown, Lynds, Mayall, Oke, Sandage, Sargent, Schmidt and Schwarzchild.

23 From Lovell's notes of the 3rd meeting of the Electoral Board on 13 July 1971, deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.

24 Extract from the Secretary's notes of the meeting of the Electoral Board on 13 July 1971.

25 Hanbury Brown gave his reasons for this decision in a letter to Lovell (12 January 1983): 'Quite apart from the historical associations ... I reckoned that the director of the RGO would need all the momentum and prestige he could get in international negotiations for a future UK Observatory abroad, and I also thought that by keeping the two positions together, they would probably get a better man to direct RGO . . . As far as I was concerned I decided that I would go back to the UK and abandon my work on stellar interferometers for only one reason - to be the director of RGO and Astronomer Royal.'

26 Gold to Lovell, 14 Feb. 1983, deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.

27 For the disarray which contributed to Margaret Burbidge's resignation see Lovell (note 18).

28 Personal communication, McCrea-Lovell, 15 March 1994, deposited with the Lovell papers in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester.



Documents

The Royal Society, the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Astronomer Royal