SUBVEY OF THE EAST OF FBANCE. 
25 
Table XX. 
Station. 
Dip. 
Declination. 
Horizontal Force. 
Total Force. 
Avignon 
61*841 
16-046 
4-6224 
9-7927 
Boulogne 
67-126 
18-227 
3-9458 
10-1511 
Clermont 
63-607 
16-460 
4-4013 
9-9010 
Dijon 
64-409 
16-612 
4-2943 
9*9418 
Dole 
64-213 
16-084 
4-3201 
9-9307 
Douay 
66-785 
17-991 
3-9931 
10-1301 
Grenoble 
62-903 
15-822 
4-4317 
9-7293 
Issenheim 
64*601 
15-794 
4-2714 
9-9585 
Lyons 
6.3-268 
4-4454 
9-8826 
Marseilles 
60-576 
15-691 
4-7207 
9-6092 
Metz 
65-458 
15-976 
4-1541 
10-0012 
Monaco 
61-368 
14-524 
4-6571 
9-7189 
Mongre 
63-498 
16-942 
4-4111 
9-8853 
Montpellier 
61-614 
16-545 
4-6358 
9-7512 
Mont Rolland 
64-260 
4-3295 
9'9692 
Moulins 
64-081 
16-487 
4-3356 
9-9190 
N. D. de Myans 
62-875 
15-182 
4-4815 
9-8293 
Paris 
65-859 
17-260 
4-1151 
10-0618 
Rheims 
65-936 
16-722 
4-1170 
10-0967 
St. Etienne 
63-063 
14-910 
4-4609 
9-8472 
Strasburg 
64-687 
15-578 
4-2502 
9-9405 
In forming this Table the observed values have invariably been used, no correction 
or omission, however much it might tend to smooth down inequalities, being judged 
admissible. Should any such corrected elements be required, they can readily be 
obtained from the data furnished by the paper. A similar Table of uncorrected results 
given in the report of the Survey of the west completes the list of magnetic elements 
for the whole of France. 
A comparison of the errors in the various elements with the geological character of 
the soil at the several stations of the survey seems to afford no indication of any decided 
disturbance due to igneous or other formations. The errors appear rather to arise from 
accidental causes, such as unknown masses of iron in the vicinity of the station of obser- 
vation, imperfection of instruments, &c. ; I have therefore omitted the geological Table. 
Neither do I think it necessary to join to this paper maps of the Isoclinals, Isogonics, 
and Isodynamics, as those for the west of France sufficiently indicate the general lie of 
the lines. 
It may not perhaps be thought superfluous if I add to this report, in the form of an 
Appendix, the observations and equations of conditions which have been deduced from 
Lamont’s data, in order to compare the survey of 1858 with that discussed in the pre- 
ceding pages. 
It will also be well to remark that some of the results given in this paper for the 
west of France differ a little from those already published. This arises from the obser- 
vations having been reduced afresh by a slightly different and more accurate method, 
similar in every respect to that used for the east of France, and in the discussion of all 
Lamont’s observations. 
Before concluding this paper I must express the great obligations I am under to the 
MDCCCLXXII. e 
