[ 2 53 } 
was many times repeated with conftant fuccefs j viz. 
the cork ball, fufpended as above, after being elec- 
trifed by the wine-glafs, and repelled from it, was 
ftrongly attracted by a rubbed flick of fealing-wax 5 
and vice verja. In the fame manner I obferved the 
eleCtric aether from a black filk flocking (which was 
held horizontally extended by the top and foot, and, 
being rubbed in the midfl with an iron poker, was 
applied to the cork ball), to be fimilar to that of 
glafs, and oppofite to that of wax. But the follow- 
ing experiment appears to me to put this matter out 
of all doubt, and to demonflrate, that this difference 
is only a plus and minus of the fame fpecific aether, 
and not different qualities of it, as Mr. Eeles would 
fuppofe. 
A flick of dry fealing-wax was rubbed on the fide 
of a dry wine-glafs, and a cork ball, fufpended as in 
the former experiments, played for fome time between, 
them : but glafs rubbed with glafs, or wax with wax, 
did not manifefl any eleCtric appearance. Whence 
it would appear, that in rubbing glafs and wax to- 
gether, the glafs accumulated on its furface the iden- 
tical aether that the wax loft. Nor is this a digrefkon. 
from my delign : for if this oppofition of the elec- 
tricity of glafs and wax be eflablifhed, it flill contri- 
butes to demonflrate the fallacy of Mr. Eeles’s ex- 
periments. 
But what alone would intirely dellroy this eleCtric 
hypothecs, is v that from the experiments of Mr. 
Franklin and others, the clouds are fometimes found 
to be ele&rifed plus , fometimes minus , and fometimes 
manifell no figns of electricity at all. Whence to 
fay an accumulation of eleCtric aether fupports thefe 
clouds, 
