452 On Franklin's Theory of Electricity. [Dec. 



■when a discharge is made, the more powerful will the electrical 

 effects prove. 



2. This current does not display itself in form of sparks unless 

 there be a certain degree of density. 



3. The two contrary forces of a charged jar are very nearly 

 equal. 



As far as regards electricity, every philosopher will certainly 

 confess that the above phenomena are easily to be accounted for 

 on these principles ; indeed they are too evident to require any 

 explanation here. Cavallo has already demonstrated them iu 

 the third part of his treatise on Electricity, p. 200. 



I am aware of no other phenomena or conclusions that have 

 been drawn from them, and alleged, in order to combat Frank- 

 lin's system, or confirm that of Symmer, at least I know of none 

 on the subject that appear to me of any importance. 



In order to explain the chemical decompositions occasioned 

 by the electric current of Volta's battery, there have, it is true, 

 been imagined certain connexions supposed to take place 

 between what is termed the vitreous electric fluid together with 

 a constituent part of the body which is decomposed, and the 

 resinous fluid and its constituent part. 



To chemists little acquainted with electricity, such a supposi- 

 tion made for the purpose of explaining these decompositions 

 will appear to possess some probabihty, seeing that in the gene- 

 rality of decompositions new combinations take place ; yet when 

 we consider whether there are solid reasons alleged in favour of 

 these pretended combinations of the electric fluid with some 

 other substance, we shall perceive that they are assumed with- 

 out any grounds. 



It appears, therefore, from what I have alleged that there is 

 no occasion for returning to the old system of Du Fay and 

 Symmer, viz. that electrical phenomena are produced by two 

 different electric fluids. Since the publication of the first part 

 of my experiments made in 1785 with the large Teylerian 

 machine, I have uniformly, along with Franklin, Volta, and 

 many other philosophers of the first rank, held the conviction 

 that the duahsm of electricity was refuted too evidently by the 

 direction of the ramification of the spark (as shown in the Plate) 

 for this hypothesis to be ever rationally defended until it shall 

 have been demonstrated that this ramification is by no means an evi- 

 dent proof in favour of the Franklinian theory of a simple elec- 

 tric fluid passing from one conductor to the other : that these 

 ramifications, although all directed towards one side, are, on the 

 contrary, equally explicable by the hypothesis of two antagonist 

 fluids, proceeding from the two sides of the spark, and there unit- 

 ing ; but I defy the most zealous defenders of duahsm to dis- 

 cover, in favour of this phenomenon, a supplementary hypothesis, 

 at all plausible ; at least all the partisans of this system to whom 



