[ 2 5 6 ] 
coiu'fe of the meteor to fome principle, at fir ft view, 
very different from the common laws of motion ; but 
perhaps not altogether inconfiftent with them, as I 
fhall endeavour to fhew in my next paper *. 
I finilhed my inquiries for the north, by writing 
to a friend in the ifle of Shetland ; but he had heard 
nothing of the meteor there. 
XXVIII. I fhall conclude with one account more, 
which I had from Dublin, in a letter from Mr. Cleg- 
horn, author of the natural hiftory of Minorca. I 
imagined, that a tolerable obfervation from that quar- 
ter would be ufeful, for afcertaining both the height 
of this body above the earth, and its real magnitude; 
and accordingly I received from thence fome proper 
materials for that purpofe. Mr. Cleghorn writes, 
“ That altho’ the meteor, of the 1 6th of November, 
u did moil certainly appear at Dublin, as well as in 
<c England, yet few people had obferved it with at- 
<c tention, and none, that he could hear of, had com- 
‘ c mitted any thing to writing, excepting one Mr. 
* It Teems, from obfervations made on other meteors of this 
kind, that the curvature in the path of fuch bodies is not extraor- 
dinary. Thus, one that appeared in Italy in 1719, recorded in 
the firft volume of the Academy of fciences at Bologna, did not 
purfue its courfe in a {freight line ; for they fay, direftio non cadem 
femper fnit. Again, in the hiftory of the Royal Academy of 
lciences at Paris, for the year 1738, we find another mentioned, 
which had fo crooked a motion, that they call it un tnouvement 
bizarre. Laftly, I obferve, that one of the gentlemen, who gave 
an account to the Royal Society of the meteor feen, about London, 
in the year 1741, defcribes it as firft (hooting to the north-eaft, and 
afterwards to the fouth-eaft. See Pbilof. Tranf. N° 463. p. 59. 
Abr. Vol. VIII. p. 525. 
“ Garrct> 
