fome luminous Arches . 29 
After comparing the phenomena above defcribed with each, 
other, and with thofe obferved by Mr. Cavallo, in London, 
March 27, 1781; by Mr. Swinton, at Oxford, Od. 12, 
1766, and April 23, 1764; by Dr. Huxham, at Plymouth, 
Feb. 15 and 16, 1749-50; and by Mr. Sparshal, at Wells 
in Norfolk, Jan. 23, in the fame year*; I cannot entertain a 
doubt, that thefe arches had all the fame origin ; and that they 
ought to be confidered as a fpecies of that kind of meteor 
called aurora borealis . 
As Mr. Cavallo has given fome reafons for diflenting from 
this opinion, with refpect to the arch which he defcribes, I 
fhall take the liberty of communicating my thoughts upon his 
arguments. His words are as follows : 44 This extraordinary 
44 appearance to me feemed quite diftindt from the aurora bo- 
“ realis, for the following reafons ; viz. becaufe it eclipfed the 
44 ftars over which it pafled ; becaufe its light, or rather its 
44 white appearance, was ftationary, and not lambent ; and 
44 becaufe its direction was from eaft to weft.” 
1. Mr. Cavallo certainly miftakes in fuppoftng that the 
ftars are not eclipfed by the aurora borealis. The corufcations 
which I faw on the 12th and 26th of April were more denfe 
than the white arches feen in March. The former ren- 
dered ftars of the fecond magnitude invifible ; but thefe I could 
difcern though the white luminous arches. The aurora ko~ 
realis r feen by Mr. Arderon, at Norwich, Jan. 23, 1750, 
eclipfed ftars of the firft magnitude. 
2. The ftation ary appearance of fome of thefe arches does 
not, I apprehend, invalidate the opinion I have entertained 
concerning their nature. For the more common aurora borealis 
may now and then be obferved to remain ftationary for a time. 
% See Philofophical Tranfa&ions for tkefe feveral, years. 
