It must be well within the last half-century that the achromatic objective-glass for the microscope was brought to perfection and its value became generally recognised. Prior to the discovery of the achromatic principle in the construction of lenses it was assumed that the formation of the microscopic image took place (as we have already seen) on ordinary dioptric principles. As the image is formed in the camera or telescope, so it was said to be in the microscope. This belief existed, it will be remembered, at a time when dry objectives only were in favour and the use of the term _angle of aperture_ was misunderstood, when it was supposed that the different media with diffraction-indices were used; and the angle of the radiant pencil was believed not only to admit of a comparison of two apertures in the same medium, but likewise to admit of a standard of comparison when the media were entirely different in their refractive qualities. It was during my tenure of office as secretary of the Royal Microscopical Society (1867 to 1873), that the aperture question, and also that of _numerical aperture_, came under discussion, both being met by the majority of the Fellows of the Society and practical opticians by a _non-possumus_. Opticians alleged, that is, before the value of aperture became fully recognised (1860), that the achromatic objective had reached a stage of perfection, beyond which it was not possible to go; indeed, not only opticians, but physicists of high standing, as Professor Helmholtz, who made many important contributions to the theory of the microscope, and who, after duly weighing all the known physical laws on which the formation of images can be explained, emphatically stated that in his opinion “the limit of possible improvement of the microscope as an instrument of discovery had been very nearly reached.” A quarter of a century ago I ventured to throw a doubt upon so questionable a statement. I determined, if possible, to submit the aperture question to an exhaustive examination. My views were accordingly submitted to two of the highest authorities in this country--Sir George Airy, the then Astronomer Royal, and Sir George Stokes, Professor of Physics at Cambridge University--both of whom agreed with me that the possible increase of aperture would be attended with great advantage to the objective, and open the way to an extension of power resolution in the microscope.[13] The discussion afterwards took a warm turn, as will be seen on reference to “The Monthly Microscopical Journals” of 1874, 1875 and 1876.