[117]. For some of the reasons which induced the writer to describe the instruments used on that occasion, see Note [125].
[118]. In addition to this publicly declared testimony of Dr. Smith, to the merits of Mr. Rittenhouse on that occasion, are the following extracts of a letter from the Dr. to Mr. Barton, dated July the 8th, 1769.
“Mr. Jesse Lukens left my house on Tuesday evening, at half an hour past six, where he waited till I scrawled out a pretty long letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, for whom my esteem encreases the more I see him; and I shall long for an opportunity of doing him justice for his elegant preparations to observe the Transit, which left Mr. Lukens and me nothing to do, but to sit down to our telescopes. This justice I have already in part done him, in a long letter to the proprietor” (Thomas Penn, Esq.) “yesterday, and I hope Mr. Rittenhouse will not deprive us of the opportunity of doing it in a more public manner, in the account we are to draw up next week.”
“I did not chuse to send Mr. Rittenhouse’s original projection of the Transit, as it is a society paper, to be inserted in our minutes: but I have enclosed an exact copy. Pray desire him to take the sun’s diameter again carefully, and examine the micrometer by it. The mean of our diameters come out, Hor. Diam. 31′ 34″, 3—Polar Diam. 31′ 32″, 8—Ven. Diam. 57, 98.—The Sun’s is bigger than the Naut. Almanac gives: That of Venus very well. The diameters of the State-house micrometer come out less. I have compared some of our” (the Norriton) “micrometer-observations with those made in town, and do not find a difference of one second: but all theirs do not seem to have been taken with equal care, and differ from each other sometimes; a fault I do not find among ours. Our nearest distance of the centres comes out, I think, 10′ 3″, in which we agree within about one second with their nearest distance: and our time of the nearest approach of the centres, viz. 5h 20′ 32″, reduced to mean time, is within one minute of the time marked for their nearest approach.”
“With my compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse and family, I am, in great haste,” &c.
Mr. Barton was then at Norriton, and Dr. Smith wrote from Philadelphia.
[119]. On the 26th of the same month he thus addressed Mr. Barton on the subject:—
“I have at last done with astronomical observations and calculations for the present, and sent copies of all my papers to Dr. Smith, who, I presume, has drawn up a complete account of our Observations on the Transit of Venus: this I hope you will see, when you come to Philadelphia. I have delineated the Transit, according to our observations, on a very large scale, made many calculations, and drawn all the conclusions I thought proper to attempt, until some foreign observations come to hand, to compare with ours; all of which have been, or will be laid before the Philosophical Society. The Doctor has constantly seemed so desirous of doing me justice, in the whole affair, that I suppose I must not think of transmitting any separate account to England.”
[120]. The first volume of the Society’s Transactions contains (p. 125,) among other observations of the transit of Venus in 1769, those made at Baskenridge in New-Jersey, by the late Earl of Sterling. William Alexander, the gentleman referred to, and who held this title, was (it is believed) a native of New-York. It is presumable that the title he bore was one to which he had an equitable right: It was recognized in America, the country of his birth, from the time of his first assumption of it until his death, although his claim to that honour was not juridically established in Great Britain, where, in official acts of that government, he was styled “William Alexander, Esq. claiming to be Earl of Sterling.” He was descended from Sir William Alexander, in the reign of James I., to whom that monarch made a grant of the province of Nova Scotia, on the 20th of September, 1621. On the 12th of July, 1625, Sir William obtained from King Charles I. a grant of the soil, lordship and domains, of that province, which, with the exception of “Port-Royal,” (Annapolis, on the Bay of Fundy,) formerly the capital of the province, he conveyed on the 30th of April, 1630, to Sir Claude de St. Etienne, lord of la Tour and Uarre, and to his son Sir Charles de St. Etienne, lord of St. Deniscourt, on condition that they should continue subjects to the crown of Scotland. This Sir William was appointed by Charles I. commander in chief of Nova-Scotia. Soon after the institution of the order of Baronets of Nova-Scotia, he had been advanced to that dignity by Charles I. viz. on the 21st of May, 1625; when the king conferred on him the privilege of coining copper-money. In 1626, he was created Viscount Sterling: and on the 14th of June, 1633, he was further promoted by the same king to the Earldom of Stirling.
The late Lord Stirling, who was seated at Baskenridge in New-Jersey, inherited his Baronetage and titles of Nobility, as heir-male to Henry, the fourth Earl. He married Sarah, daughter of Philip Livingston, Esq. of New-York, by whom he had issue two daughters; Lady Mary, married to —— Watts, Esq. of New-York, and Lady Catharine, first married to William Duer, Esq. of New-York, and after his decease to William Nelson, Esq. of the same city.