The Sun.
London, England, 1868-11-12 00:00:00

THB Nbr2MI3BP MBITOPS.

nit pai/P Krtin It 1341181211 v an interesting aetiei 62
articles bn snetebrologieal subjeCts--a new plan for the
Scientific education of the massed. Their last article was
on the November meteoric showers. It endeavours to
find out the laws which regulate these. Astronomers
themselves, it said, had been unwilling to accept the
theory that the recurrence of periodic maxima some three
times in a century indicated that the zone of meteors had
that enormous extension which 'corresponds to a period of
revolution of thirty-three years. It was shewn that if the
meteors really revolved4in such a period, their orbital
motions must carry them far out in space beyond the orbit
of the distant planet Uranus. Therefore, astronomers
attempted to shew that the meteors may possibly
revolve in an orbit somewhat smaller than that
of our own earth, the richest part of the zone circling round
in less than a year, but encountering our earth once only
in thirty-three years. But the calculations of Adams
have proved beyond all possibility of doubt that the zone
of meteors really has the enormous extension indicated by
the former view. The meteors which we watched
in 1866 bad come from beyond the orbit of Uranus, and
we might almost say that they were connected
by a continuous stream of their companions with
those far distant regions of space which lie between
the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. But this is not all.
One of the most suggestive discoveries ever made by
astronomers is associated in an intimate manner with the
November shooting-star system. We believe that the
Italian Schiaparelli was the first to notice that the August
meteors seem to travel in the track of the great comet
of 1862. The coincidence between the meteor
zone and the orbit of that comet was sufficiently
close, when a certain assumption was made re-
specting the paths of the meteors. The assump-
tion was permissible —at least nothing was known about
the meteors which seemed to negative it. But a certain
amount of doubt naturally clung round a theory which
required an antecedent supposition of this sort. But as
soon as the actual orbit of a meteor system was determined,
it was hoped that more satisfactory evidence might be
obtained on the subject of the supposed connection
between comets and shooting-star systems. Therefore,
astronomers began to examine the lists of cometic
orbits to see if any of them agreed with the orbit
assigned to the November meteor zone. For some
time the search was unsuccessful. None of the larger
and more conspicuous comets spewed any such approach
to coincidence as had been looked for. But at length,
when the inquiry had been extended to telescopic comets,
one was found which presented the required elements.
This comet had been discovered by Dr. Temple early in
the year 1866, and it has been well pointed out that the
coincidence by which the discovery of the comet fell in
the very year in which the problem of the November
shooting stars was finally solved, is among the most in-
teresting of the many coincidences which have been
recorded in the annals of science. The agreement between
the orbit of Temple's comet and that of the November
shooting stars is too close for any doubt to remain that a
real association exists between the meteors and the comet ;
and since the discovery of the association we have pointed
out, other shooting-star systems—for many are recognised
by astronomers—have been examined, and in several
other instances it has been found that a similar association
connects comets and shooting stars. We think this dis-
covery may fairly be looked upon as one of the most
remarkable ever made.

THE PILOTAGE OF THE BRISTOL

CIIANNEL.

An important decision in reference to the pilotage of
the Bristol Channel was given by the Court of Queen's
Bench yesterday. The case of Jones (appellant) v. Carey
(respondent) was a Crown case stated for the opinion of
the court. On the 29th November the appellant was
convicted before the stipendiary magistrate of Cardiff, for
that he, the said appellant, on the 9th of that month, then
being an unqualified pilot, did unlawfully continue in
charge of a certain ship, called the Apotheker Diesing,
after the respondent, a qualified pilot, had offered to
take her in charge. The appellant was find 20s. and
costs, and against that conviction he now appealed. The
facts are these. By the 47th Geo. 111., c. 33, the mayor, &c.,
of Bristol were constituted the pilotage authority of the
whole of the Bristol Channel, with the sole right of licensing
pilots within their district, but in 1861, owing to the great
extension of trade in the ports of Cardiff, Newport, and
Gloucester, a separate system of pilotage was established
by the Bristol Channel Pilotage Act of 1861. This Act
appoints pilotage boards for each of the said ports, and
gives to each board the power, subject to the provision of
the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, to appoint persons to
act as pilots within their respective pilotage districts. By
section 24, all Bristol pilots duly licensed before
the 24th July, 1861, to pilot vessels within the Bristol
Channel are authorised so to act within the same limits
and in the same manner as they might have lawfully
acted before the passing of the Act ; and they were likewise
declared to be entitled to a supplementary license at the
hands of any of the bald boards to pilot any vessel
within the port or ports respectively under the control of
such board. The district assigned to the Cardiff
board was, by the Bth sec., defined to he the port
of Cardiff, and that part of the Bristol Channel
which lies eastward 'of Lundy Island, up to and
including King's Road, and the River Rhymney up
to Rhymney Bridge. The expression, the port of Cardiff,
was declared to be and to mean by the interpretation of
that clause " the customs port of Cardiff for the
time being." The limits of the several ports was
defined by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in
January, 1868. The respondent holds a license from the
Bristol pilotage authorities and a license from the Cardiff
Board as a pilot from the port of Cardiff. The appellant
was a pilot, duly licensed by the Newport Board Pilotage
District. By the 361st section of the Merchant Shipping
Act of 1854, an unqualified pilot assuming or continuing in
charge of any ship after a qualified pilot had offered
to take charge of her, or using a license which he was not
entitled to use, incurred a penalty not exceeding £5O. The
ship in question left the Bute Docks in the port of Cardiff,
where she had loaded on the Bth November, in charge of a
pilot, and was by him duly anchored in Penarth Roads,
within the port of Cardiff, and immediately afterwards the
pilot left her without any intention of returning, the
vessel remaining there until the wind should be favour-
able. After remaining twenty-four hours she signalled
for a pilot, and she was soon answered and boarded
by the appellant, who took charge of her.
Shortly afterwards, the respondent, seeing the signal,
went on board to pilot the vessel down the Channel, and
requested the appellant to leave. The appellant refused,
informing the respondent that he held a Newport license,
which authorised him to pilot the vessel in any
part of the British Channel eastward of Lundy
Island. He afterwards got the ship under weigh,
piloted her down Channel, and was paid for his
services. The question was, whether Penarth Roads,
within the meaning of the Act, was part of the Bristol
Channel, and so within the jurisdiction of the Newport
Board. The stipendiary magistrate declared it was not
but part of the port of Cardiff.

The Court held that their judgment must be for
the appellant. It was much to be lamented
that in a matte': of this kind, the terms
used in the Act of Parliament, were so ambiguous
for all that difficulty arose from the interpretation clause.
There could be no doubt, however, that the term " port "
meant the port of Cardiff the ordinary sense in which the
word port was used as an harbour.