SB81 Oil Ftanklhi^i Theory of Ekctrhity. [MarchT, 



centres before they themselves get there, or how they should be 

 attracted by the atmospheres before those atmospheres are 

 formed, M. Van Miarmn has not suggested, nor is it easy ttf 

 imagine. 



It is not, however, fair to complain of M. Van Martini's sup- 

 porting one hypothesis by another, nor do I perceive that hisu 

 own hypothesis is more contrary to his own propositions than the 

 Fmnkiinian hypothesis is to the analogies of nature. FrauklitX" 

 supposes that there is in all bodies a natural quantity of electric' 

 fluid, which cannot be perceived, and produces no effects ; and 

 which consequently is from its very nature incapable of any 

 proof; that it so perfectly combines with bodies as entirely to 

 lose all its properties, yet is held by so slight a force as to be 

 removed by the least possible attraction ; as in the communicaT 

 lion of negative electricity. Such a; fluid is perfectly anomalous, 

 leaving, therefore, the hypothesis not only unsupported by fact, 

 but even by analogy. 



But it may be said, if there be two electric fluids which on 

 combination neutralise each other, what becomes of that com- 

 pound? It certainly would not follow that if no answer could be 

 given to the question, therefore the Franklinian hypothesis must 

 be correct. That would still be entirely an hypothesis, andyi^ 

 therefore, ought at once to be rejected, as offering the wrong' 

 path to truth : nor ought, on the other hand, any hypothesis to 

 be received in reply to such a question. In order, however, that 

 we may not be misled from the proper answer, it may be well to 

 observe that it ought not to be expected that the compound' 

 fluid should possess the same properties as its component parts 

 any more than water does, or nitric acid. Another question may 

 perhaps lead us to the proper ansv^^er. Is there any thing always 

 produced by the combination of two electi'icities ? If there be, 

 we are bound to assume that the produce is the compound of 

 the two fluids. Oxygen and hydrogen combine, and the caloric 

 being disengaged, water is produced ; and we assume that water 

 is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen. The two electric 

 fluids combine, and caloric is produced, and that not from an]^^ 

 concussion of the air, for it is produced in vacuo. Why then i&" 

 not the same inductive reasoning to be admitted in ethereal as in 

 gaseous fluids ? Why should we not admit the suggestion which 

 has been offered,* that caloric is a compound of the two elec- 

 tricities? r remain, Sir, yours, &c. C. 



♦ Eway on Heatj Light, oiid Elcrtricitjr, tjr C. C. BotripasK 



