In 1718 he was elected fellow of the Royal Society; in 1719 he was ordained to the vicarage of Bridstow, in Monmouthshire; in the following year he received a sinecure preferment. But in 1721 he resigned these livings, on obtaining the Savilian professorship of Astronomy at Oxford, the holder of which, by the statutes, must not have any benefice. To finish what we may call the gazette of his life, he was engaged in observation (with what results we shall presently see) both at Kew and Wanstead till 1732, when he went to reside at Oxford, having since 1729 given yearly courses of lectures on Experimental Philosophy. In 1742 he was appointed to succeed Halley as Astronomer Royal, and he held this appointment for the remainder of his life. In the same year he obtained the degree of D.D. In 1752, having refused the living of Greenwich, because he thought the duty of a pastor to be incompatible with his other studies and necessary engagements, he was presented with a pension of 250_l._ The last observation made by him in the observatory is dated Sept. 1, 1761; and he died July 13, 1762, at Chalford in Gloucestershire, having been afflicted by various diseases for several years, and particularly by a depression of spirits, arising from the fear lest he should survive his faculties. He married in 1744, and left one daughter, who died at Greenwich in 1812. There are now no lineal descendants of Bradley. Most of his writings, which were few in number, were published in the Philosophical Transactions. His personal merits are proved by the number of his friends, and the warmth with which they endeavoured to serve him when occasion arose, as well as by the strength of the testimonies which those who survived bore to his reputation as a man and a member of society. We have much abridged the preceding account, in order to make room for a popular exposition of his two great discoveries—the _aberration of light_, and the _nutation of the earth’s axis_. If we were to blot these discoveries out of his life, there would remain an ample stock of useful labours, fully sufficient to justify us in stating that Bradley was unequalled as an observer, and of no mean character as a philosopher. But for the latter we must refer the reader to the excellent account from which our facts have been taken, or to any history of astronomy.