C 2 9 8 ] 
lando Bridgman, Efq; defcribing the fame ftorm, it 
is faid, that <£ the chain of the watch was melted', 
“ and that no harm or burn could be perceived on 
“ his breeches or cloaths.” Now, if both the watch 
and chain were melted all on a lump, and the pocket 
unburnt, as might be concluded from both thefe 
accounts laid together, it would be a ftrong argument 
in favour of cold fufion : but there is great reafon to 
fufpedt the truth of the firft-mentioned relation ; be- 
caufe the author of it writes only from hearfay, being 
himfelf at Colchefter, at feveral miles diftance from 
where the thing happened. Whereas Mr. Bridgman 
w r as upon the fpot, and examined one of the dead 
bodies himfelf very minutely ; and tho’ he does not 
fay, that he faw the body of him, whofe watch- 
chain was melted, yet he gives a very circumftantial 
account of it *, and, if the watch had been melted, a3 
well as the chain, he could not have omitted that 
particular. It is therefore probable, that the chain 
only was melted, and that, hanging out of the pocket, 
it had left no marks of burning on the breeches. 
We have, in our Tranfadtions, another account of 
the effe&s of lightning by Dr. Cookfon, of Wake- 
held -j-, who relates, “ That the lightning fell on a 
“ box of knives and forks, and melted a great many 
of them, the fheaths being untouched.” But 
the dodor, in another account, which is fuller and 
more exadf, fays, “ the lightning difperfed a great 
<k many dozen of knives and forks, which were put up 
“ in a box, all over the room. Upon gathering them 
* Philof. Tranf. Abr. Vol. V. p. 154. 
■\ Ibid. Vol. VIII. p, 504. 
