Can we hesitate as to the inference we should deduce from this result? We need not for a moment call in question the skill or care with which the British observing parties carried out their operations. Nor need we doubt that the results obtained have been most skilfully and cautiously investigated by those to whom the work of supervision and of reduction has been entrusted. We need not even question the policy of devoting so large a share of labour and expense to the employment of a method held in little favour by most experienced Continental and American astronomers, and objected to by many in England, including some even among official astronomers. It was perhaps well that the method should have one fair and full trial. And it is certain that all who have taken part in the work have done their duty zealously and skilfully. Captain Tupman, to whom Sir George Airy, our chief official astronomer, entrusted the management of the calculations, has received, and justly, from his official superior, the highest commendation for his energy and discrimination. But beyond all manner of doubt the method employed has failed under the test thus applied to it. I do not say that hereafter the method may not succeed. Some of the conditions which at present render it untrustworthy are such as may be expected to be modified with the progress of improvement in the construction of scientific instruments. But as yet the method is certainly not trustworthy. This might be safely concluded from the wide discrepancy between the new result and the mean of those before obtained. Yet if all the various observations made by the British observing parties agreed closely together, the circumstance, though it could hardly shake our inference on this point, would yet cause some degree of perplexity, since, of itself, it would seem to imply that the method was trustworthy. Fortunately we are not thus troubled by conflicting evidence. The indications of the untrustworthy nature of the method, derived from the discordance between the results obtained by it and those before inferred, are not a whit clearer, clear and convincing though they are, than are the indications afforded by their discordance _inter se_. The distance derived from northern and southern observations of the beginning of transit ought of course to be the same as that derived from northern and southern observations of the end of transit. If both sets of observations were exactly correct, the agreement between the results would be exact. The discordance between them could only be wide as a consequence of some serious imperfection in this method of observing a transit. But the discordance is _very_ wide. The observations of the beginning of transit by the British parties give a distance of the sun exceeding by rather more than a million miles that deduced from the observations of the end of transit.