On the Height of the Aurora Borealis. 87 



1621 on the 2d of September, seen all over France, and well 

 described by Gassendus in liis Physicks, who gives it the 

 name of the Aurora Borealis. This, though little inferior to . 

 what we lately saw, and appearing to the northward both of 

 Rouen and Paris, is nowhere said to have been seen in Eng- 

 land, over which the light seemed to lie." 



From a consideration of the points I have advanced,together 

 ^•ith the fact, that the aurora takes place in the frigid 

 re-ions, about the ordinary height of the clouds, or even at 

 lesls heights, as proved by the observations of Franklin 

 Richardson, Parry, &c. I submit that there is no sufficient 

 ground for assuming that the aurora ever takes place above 

 ?he earth's atmosphere, and I believe it does at times take 

 place in England, at heights very little above the higher re- 

 gions of the clouds. I again beg to suggest a trial of the ex- 

 periment I proposed to the British Association, at the Glas- 

 gow meeting, /. e., for causing the aurora by raising electric 

 conductors by the aid of balloons, to the height of the clouds 

 in the frigid regions during severe frosts ; and as I suggested 

 similar experiments with electrical kites, to Sir John Frank- 

 lin, previous to his leaving England, I have hopes that some 

 farther light may be thrown on the subject on his return. 



G. A. ROWELL. 



November 22, 1847. 



Since writing the foregoing, I have read in the Philosophi- 

 cal Transactions, the paper of the late Dr Dalton on the 

 height of the aurora of March 29, 1826; and I think there 

 are many points in it which tell in favour of my views. 



On that evening an auroral arch was seen at Edinburgh, 

 and several intermediate places thence southward to War- 

 rington, on the south border of Lancashire, and it was assumed 

 that the same arch was seen at each place. 



Dr Dalton first gives the account of it as seen at Edinburgh, 

 and then the accounts from Jedburgh, Hawick, and Kelso, 

 places about 40 miles south of Edinburgh. These accounts 

 seem to be drawn up with care, but Dr Dalton remarks, 

 " From this it would seem that the arch, instead of appearing 

 low from the last mentioned places, as it must have done if 



