Kirwanlan Soc'iehj of Dublin. 397 



brought forward an experiment in which bodies similarly- 

 electrified attracted instead of repelling each other. He 

 then argued in opposition to Dr. Franklin's opinions con- 

 cerning the existence, equal distribution, and relative pro- 

 portion of electricity in bodies ; he showed that the train 

 of phsenoinena depending on attraction and repulsion are 

 not explained by this hynothesis ; and that the reasonings 

 on the subject are contradictory to facts, and against them- 

 selves. 



April ]5 the reading was continued. — Mr. Donovan con- 

 ceived that the impernieabilily of glas-', as assumed by Dr. 

 Franklin, was incompatible with some of the Doctor's own 

 principles ; and, if impermeability were proved, that the 

 fact would offer insurinountable obstacles to the admission of 

 the remaining principles of the hypothesis. Re also produced 

 an experiment which seemed decisively to prove that glass 

 is permeable. He then proceeded, at some length, on the 

 doctrine of plus and minus, and made an experiment to 

 prove that Leyden phials when fully charged do not indi- 

 cate the states of electricity usually attributed to them : he 

 showed that when a phial is supposed to contain an excess, 

 it will manifest unequivocal indications of a diminution on 

 the same surface ; and noticed a variety of other phano- 

 niena contradictory to the hypothesis. He concluded his 

 observations on Franklin's hypothesis, by making some 

 remarks on its insufficiency to explain excitation. 



Mav 13. The reading was continued. — The next hypo- 

 thesis v/hich came under examination was that of Ecles, 

 which has been generally attributed to Symmer and Dr. 

 Priestley. After stating the hypolhesis, he proceeded to ex- 

 amine its principles. Some observations were first made 

 on the improbability of the existence of two distinct fluids. 

 'i"he author then proceeded to show, that even allowing the 

 properties assumed as belonging to these fluids, yet still the 

 phaenomena of attraction and repulsion are not explained ; 

 and that some consequences fairly deduced from the hy- 

 pothesis are contradicted \\y well-known facts. He made 

 some remarks on Eclcs's objections to the permeability of 

 glass as maintained by Dr. Franklin, and showed that iliese 

 objections were invalid. He further observed, that strong 

 objections t<» some parts of the hypothesis arise out of allow- 

 ing permeability to glass. It was next shown that on these 

 principles, the Leyden phial, in the operation called charg- 

 ing, should have even iis natural quantity diniinistied to 

 oife half, far tn.m having one of its powers doubletl as is 

 supposed in the hyiiolhesis. He concluded his objections 

 Cc 3 tc 



